A Generalized Pedagogical Framework for Creating Mixed-Mode Role-Play in Multi-User Virtual Environments

  • Enas JambiEmail author
  • Michael Gardner
  • Victor Callaghan
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1044)


Science students face considerable challenges when attempting to absorb and visualize abstract concepts presented to them in the classroom; educators use a number of methods to support their students in this regard. Our focus is on two such methods currently being used by educators: role-play and 3D simulation; these are designed to immerse the student in the learning process. Both methods attempt to make the invisible, visible. However, the literature demonstrates a lack of research, in particular, into the effectiveness of learning through structured role-play and the impact of this method on students using Multi-User Virtual Environments (MUVEs).

This paper exhibits the effects of an interactive role-play learning activity, supported within a MUVE, on the learning process. The activity is generated by a data-driven framework that acts as a template for the creation of the role-play the role-play is generated automatically from pre-defined data stored in a database. The framework is generalizable, which means that it can be used for other role-play subjects by re-configuring the data in the database. This paper aims to demonstrate the advantages of the ‘immersion’ that Virtual Reality (VR) can provide to its users via the means of allowing them to take on the role of an object involved in a message-passing system. This object will be one which is collaborative with other objects in a role-play activity. The role-play activity will be generated by a data-driven pedagogical framework called MMRP.


  1. 1.
    McConnell, J.J.: Active learning and its use in computer science. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 28(SI), 52–54 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anzai, Y., Simon, H.A.: The theory of learning by doing. Psychol. Rev. 86(2), 124 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tashiro, J.S., Dunlap, D.: The impact of realism on learning engagement in educational games. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Future Play. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boulos, M.N.K., Hetherington, L., Wheeler, S.: Second life: an overview of the potential of 3-D virtual worlds in medical and health education. Health Inf. Libr. J. 24(4), 233–245 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Colella, V.: Participatory simulations: building collaborative understanding through immersive dynamic modeling. J. Learn. Sci. 9(4), 471–500 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gregory, S., Masters, Y.: Real thinking with virtual hats: a role-playing activity for pre-service teachers in second life. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 28(3), 420–440 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dracup, M.: Online Role Play Stories, Engagement and Learning in Higher Education. Deakin University, Victoria (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jambi, E., Gardner, M., Callaghan, V.: Supporting mixed-mode role-play activities in a virtual environment. In: Computer Science and Electronic Engineering (CEEC). IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dalgarno, B., Lee, M.J.: What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? Br. J. Educ. Technol. 41(1), 10–32 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McSharry, G., Jones, S.: Role-play in science teaching and learning. Sch. Sci. Rev. 82, 73–82 (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Braund, M.: Drama and learning science: an empty space? Br. Educ. Res. J. 41(1), 102–121 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brook, P.: The Empty Space: A Book About the Theatre: Deadly, Holy, Rough, Immediate. Simon and Schuster, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bainbridge, W.S.: The scientific research potential of virtual worlds. Science 317(5837), 472–476 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jarmon, L., et al.: Virtual world teaching, experiential learning, and assessment: an interdisciplinary communication course in second life. Comput. Educ. 53(1), 169–182 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Winn, W.: A conceptual basis for educational applications of virtual reality. Technical Publication R-93-9, Human Interface Technology Laboratory of the Washington Technology Center, University of Washington, Seattle (1993)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mantovani, F.: 12 VR learning: potential and challenges for the Use of 3D environments in education and training. In: Towards Cyberpsychology: Mind, Cognition, and Society in the Internet Age, vol. 2, no. 207 (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alzahrani, A.: Towards the Development and Understanding of Collaborative Mixed-Reality Learning Spaces. University of Essex, Colchester (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Duncan, I., Miller, A., Jiang, S.: A taxonomy of virtual worlds usage in education. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 43(6), 949–964 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beck, K., Cunningham, W.: A laboratory for teaching object oriented thinking. In: ACM Sigplan Notices. ACM (1989)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hvam, L., Riis, J., Hansen, B.L.: CRC cards for product modelling. Comput. Ind. 50(1), 57–70 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jimenez-Diaz, G., Gonzalez-Calero, P.A., Gomez-Albarran, M.: Role-play virtual worlds for teaching object-oriented design: the ViRPlay development experience. Softw.: Pract. Exp. 42(2), 235–253 (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sargent, R.G.: Verification and validation of simulation models. In: Simulation Conference (WSC), Proceedings of the 2009 Winter. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wiebe, E.N., et al.: Measuring engagement in video game-based environments: investigation of the user engagement scale. Comput. Hum. Behav. 32, 123–132 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    O’Brien, H.L., Toms, E.G.: Examining the generalizability of the user engagement scale (UES) in exploratory search. Inf. Process. Manag. 49(5), 1092–1107 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Combs, G.: Wireshark is 2.6.2. (1998).
  26. 26.
    Wireshark Wiki. The wiki site for the Wireshark network protocol analyzer (2017).
  27. 27.
    Burgos, D.: What is wrong with the IMS learning design specification? constraints and recommendations. In: LWA, Citeseer (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rosen, K.H.: Discrete Mathematics and its Applications. McGraw-Hill, New York (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Enas Jambi
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Michael Gardner
    • 1
  • Victor Callaghan
    • 1
  1. 1.University of EssexColchesterUK
  2. 2.University of JeddahJeddahSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations