Second life as a learning environment for computer programming

  • Atul SajjanharEmail author
  • Julie Faulkner


In this study, we gauge the perceptions of novice computer programmers about Second Life (SL) as a digital learning environment for concept understanding in computer programming. SL is chosen as the learning environment because it offers, within a constructivist frame, the use of learner-centered pedagogies for designing curriculum. We adopt a pilot study as the research methodology. The participants in the study possessed novice programming skills, and they engaged in activities designed for achieving the learning objectives. Qualitative data collected from multiple sources of evidence were interpreted and analyzed. Generally, the findings of the study strongly support the use of SL for novice programmers to learn programming, and the usability of SL. The findings suggest positive support offered by SL although the findings cannot be used to make form conclusions due to the small-scale nature of the study.


Virtual world Second life Computer programming Constructivist learning 



  1. Antaki, C., Billig, M., Edwards, D., and Potter, J. (2003). Discourse analysis means doing analysis: A critique of six analytic shortcomings, from Accessed 25 Oct 2015.
  2. Bazeley, P. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: Practical strategies. Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Boulos, M. N. K., Hetherington, L., & Wheeler, S. (2007). Second life: An overview of the potential of 3-D virtual worlds in medical and health education. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 24(4), 233–245.Google Scholar
  4. Buck, D., & Stucki, D. (2001). JKarelRobot: A case study in supporting levels of cognitive development in the computer science curriculum. In Proceedings of SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 16–20). Charlotte NC, USA: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  5. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd cd.), upper Saddle River. NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
  6. Dalgarno, B., Lee, M.J.W., Carlson, L, Gregory, S and Tynan, B. (2010). 3D immersive virtual worlds in higher education: An Australian and New Zealand scoping study, ascilite, Sydney, 269–280.Google Scholar
  7. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Dunican, E. (2002). Making the analogy: Alternative delivery techniques for first year programming courses.Google Scholar
  9. Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  10. Esteves, M., Fonseca, B., Morgado, L., & Martins, P. (2009). Using second life for problem based learning in computer science programming. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 2(1), 3–25.Google Scholar
  11. Felix, U. (2005). E-learning pedagogy in the third millennium: The need for combining social and cognitive constructivist approaches. ReCALL, 17(01), 85–100.Google Scholar
  12. Gallagher, S. A. (1997). Problem-based learning. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20(4), 332–362.Google Scholar
  13. Gliddon, J. (2012). Australia's ICT graduate crisis, itNews, from Accessed 12 Sept 2015.
  14. Han, J., & Beheshti, M. (2010). Enhancement of computer science introductory courses with mentored pair programming. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 25(4), 149–155.Google Scholar
  15. Henderson, L., Grant, S., Henderson, M., & Huang, H. (2010). University students' cognitive engagement while learning in a virtual world, Australian computers in education conference, 6–9 April. Australia: Melbourne.Google Scholar
  16. Hundhausen, C. D., Douglas, S. A., & Stasko, J. T. (2002). A meta-study of software visualization effectiveness. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 13(3), 259–290.Google Scholar
  17. Jenkins, T. (2001). The motivation of students of programming. In Proceedings of ITiCSE 2001: The 6th annual conference on innovation and technology in computer science education, 53–56.Google Scholar
  18. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research. (2009). Pedagogy. Education and: Innovation in Virtual Worlds.Google Scholar
  19. Kern, N. (2009). Starting a Second Life, from Accessed 25 May 2012.
  20. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.Google Scholar
  21. Lang, C., McKay, J et al. (2007). Seven factors that influence ICT student achievement. ACM SIGCSE bulletin, 12th annual SIGCSE conference on innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, 39 (3).Google Scholar
  22. Lister, R., & Leaney, J. (2003). First year programming: Let all the flowers bloom (pp. 221–230). Adelaide, Australia: Proceedings of the fifth Australasian conference on Computing education.Google Scholar
  23. Liu, C. H., & Matthews, R. (2005). Vygotsky's philosophy: Constructivism and its criticisms examined. International Education Journal, 6(3), 386–399.Google Scholar
  24. Liu, C. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by on-line small group problem-solving activity. Computers & Education, 50(3), 627–639.Google Scholar
  25. Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional design and learning theory, from Accessed 25 Nov 2014.
  26. Novak, T. P. (2010). eLab City: A platform for academic research on virtual worlds. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 3(1), 3–33.Google Scholar
  27. O’Grady, M. J. (2012). Practical problem-based learning in computing education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 12(3), 10.Google Scholar
  28. Pear, J. J., & Crone-Todd, D. E. (2002). A social constructivist approach to computer-mediated instruction. Computers in Education, 38(1), 221–231.Google Scholar
  29. Pellas, N., & Peroutseas, E. (2016). Gaming in second life via Scratch4SL: Engaging high school students in programming courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(1), 108–143.Google Scholar
  30. Pellas, N., & Peroutseas, E. (2017). Leveraging Scratch4SL and second life to motivate high school students' participation in introductory programming courses: Findings from a case study. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 23(1), 51–79.Google Scholar
  31. Piaget, J. (1977). The role of action in the development of thinking (pp. 17–42). Springer USA: Knowledge and Development.Google Scholar
  32. Relan, A., & Gillani, B. B. (1997). Web-based instruction and the traditional classroom: Similarities and differences. Khan, 62, 41–46.Google Scholar
  33. Robins, A., Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer Science Education, 13(2), 137–172.Google Scholar
  34. Robinson, C. C., & Hullinger, H. (2008). New benchmarks in higher education: Student engagement in online learning. Journal of Education for Business, 84(2), 101–109.Google Scholar
  35. Sajjanhar, A., & Faulkner, J. (2014) Exploring second life as a learning environment for computer programming. Creative Education, 05(01), 53-62.Google Scholar
  36. Rosenbaum, E. (2008). Scratch for second life, in proceedings of the international conference of the learning sciences-ICLS, 144–152.Google Scholar
  37. Schwartz, B. (2000). Self-determination: The tyranny of freedom. American Psychologist, 55(1), 79–88.Google Scholar
  38. Sloane, K., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Instructional conditions in Pascal programming classes. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Teaching and learning computer programming: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 207–235). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale: N.J.Google Scholar
  39. Solutes, J.F. (1990). The ethics of qualitative research. In E.W. Eisner and A. Peshkin (Eds.) qualitative inquiry in education, New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 247-257.Google Scholar
  40. Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  41. Strobel, J., & Van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 4.Google Scholar
  42. Teague, D. (2011). Pedagogy of introductory programming: A people-first approach, MIT (research) thesis. Queensland University of Technology.Google Scholar
  43. Van Gorp M., and Grisson, S. (2001). An Empirical Evaluation of Using Constructive Classroom Activities to Teach Introductory Programming, Computer Science Education 2001, Vol. 11, No. 3, 247–260.Google Scholar
  44. Van Maanen, J. (1979). Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research: A preface. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 520–526.Google Scholar
  45. Vosinakis, S., Anastassakis, G., & Koutsabasis, P. (2018). Teaching and learning logic programming in virtual worlds using interactive microworld representations. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(1), 30–44.Google Scholar
  46. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Translated by Michael Cole: Harvard University Press, Boston, USA.Google Scholar
  47. Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Massachusetts, USA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Warburton, W. (2009). Second life in higher education: Assessing the potential for and the barriers to deploying virtual worlds in learning and teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40, 414–426.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  49. Warden, C. A., Stanworth, J. O., Ren, J. B., & Warden, A. R. (2013). Synchronous learning best practices: An action research study. Computers in Education, 63, 197–207.Google Scholar
  50. Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.Google Scholar
  51. Wyse, S. E. (2011). What is the difference between qualitative research and quantitative research? from Accessed 25 Oct 2015.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Deakin UniversityBurwoodAustralia
  2. 2.Monash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations