Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 32579
Individual Differences and Paired Learning in Virtual Environments

Authors: Patricia M. Boechler, Heather M. Gautreau


In this research study, postsecondary students completed an information learning task in an avatar-based 3D virtual learning environment. Three factors were of interest in relation to learning; 1) the influence of collaborative vs. independent conditions, 2) the influence of the spatial arrangement of the virtual environment (linear, random and clustered), and 3) the relationship of individual differences such as spatial skill, general computer experience and video game experience to learning. Students completed pretest measures of prior computer experience and prior spatial skill. Following the premeasure administration, students were given instruction to move through the virtual environment and study all the material within 10 information stations. In the collaborative condition, students proceeded in randomly assigned pairs, while in the independent condition they proceeded alone. After this learning phase, all students individually completed a multiple choice test to determine information retention. The overall results indicated that students in pairs did not perform any better or worse than independent students. As far as individual differences, only spatial ability predicted the performance of students. General computer experience and video game experience did not. Taking a closer look at the pairs and spatial ability, comparisons were made on pairs high/matched spatial ability, pairs low/matched spatial ability and pairs that were mismatched on spatial ability. The results showed that both high/matched pairs and mismatched pairs outperformed low/matched pairs. That is, if a pair had even one individual with strong spatial ability they would perform better than pairs with only low spatial ability individuals. This suggests that, in virtual environments, the specific individuals that are paired together are important for performance outcomes. The paper also includes a discussion of trends within the data that have implications for virtual environment education.

Keywords: Avatar-based, virtual environment, paired learning, individual differences.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI):

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 695


[1] R. Martenstyaro, and Y. Rosmansyah, “A framework for designing survey training based on 3D virtual learning environment using SLOODLE,” In: 2015 International Conference on Information Technology Systems and Innovation (ICITSI), 2015.
[2] F. Gao, J. J. Noh, and M. J. Koehler, “Comparing Role-playing Activities in Second Life and Face-to-Face Environments,” Journal of Interactive Learning Research, vol. 20, pp. 423-443. Chesapeake, VA: AACE, 2009.
[3] J. Good, K. Howland, and L. Thackray, “Problem-based learning spanning real and virtual worlds: A case study in Second Life,” ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, vol. 16, pp. 163-172, 2008.
[4] J.J. Gibson, “The ecological approach to perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1986.
[5] B. Cho, K. Jeonghun, J. Dong Pyo, K. Saebyul, L. Yong Hee, “The effect of virtual reality cognitive training for attention enhancement, “Cyberpsychology & Behavior, vol. 5, 129-13, 2002.
[6] H.G. Hoffman, “Virtual-reality therapy,” Scientific American, vol. 291, pp. 58–65, 2004.
[7] N. Yee, “Motivations for play in on-line games,” Cyberpsychology and Behavior, vol. 9, pp. 772-775, 2006.
[8] B. Dalgarno, and M.J.W Lee, “What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments?, “ British Educational Technology, vol. 41, pp. 10–32, 2010.
[9] D. Waller, D. Knapp, and E. Hunt, “Spatial representations of virtual mazes: The role of visual fidelity and individual differences,” Human Factor, vol. 43, pp. 147-158, 2001.
[10] F. D. Rose, F. D., E. A. Attree, B. M. Brooks, D. M. Parslow, D. M., P. R. Penn, and N. M. Ambihaipahan, “Training in virtual environments: transfer to real world tasks and equivalence to real task training, ‘Ergonomics, vol. 43, pp. 494-511, 2000.
[11] M. Allahyar, and E. Hunt, “The assessment of spatial orientation using virtual reality techniques,” International Journal of Testing, vol. 3, pp. 263-275, 2003.
[12] D. Perani, F. Fazio, N. A. Borghese, M. Tettamanti, S. Ferrari, J. Decety, and M.C. Gilardi, “Different brain correlates for watching real and virtual hand actions,” NeuroImage, vol. 14, pp. 749-758, 2001.
[13] M. Gattis, “Mapping relational structure in spatial reasoning, “Cognitive Science, vol. 28, pp. 589-610, 2004.
[14] M. Kyttälä, ”Visuospatial working memory in adolescents with poor performance in mathematics: variation depending on reading skills,” Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, vol. 28, pp. 273-289, 2008.
[15] Z. Merchant, E. T. Goetz, W. Keeney-Kennicutt, O. Kwoka, L. Cifuentes, and T. J. Davis, “The learner characteristics, features of desktop 3D virtual reality environments, and college chemistry instruction: A structural equation modeling analysis, “Computers & Education, vol. 59, pp. 551–568, 2012.
[16] W. Hwang, and S. Hu,“Analysis of peer learning behaviors using multiple representations in virtual reality and their impacts on geometry problem –solving,” Computers & Education, vol. 62, 308-319, 2013.
[17] H. van Oostendorpa, and S. Karanamb, “Using a Cognitive Model of Web-Navigation to Generate Support for 3D Virtual Navigation,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 15, pp. 283–284, 2012.
[18] P. Boechler, H. Gautreau, E. deJong, and P. Sterling, “Towards a Psychological Model for Learning in Avatar-based Virtual Environments: How Important is Spatial Processing?,” In T. Bastiaens, J. Van Braak, M. Brown, L. Cantoni, M. Castro, R. Christensen, G. Davidson-Shivers, K. DePryck, M. Ebner, M. Fominykh, C. Fulford, S. Hatzipanagos, G. Knezek, K. Kreijns, G. Marks, E. Sointu, E. Korsgaard Sorensen, J. Viteli, J. Voogt, P. Weber, E. Weippl & O. Zawacki-Richter (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology, pp. 2075-2083, 2018, Amsterdam, Netherlands: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
[19] D. H. Shunk, Learning theories: An educational perspective (3rd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2000.
[20] A. S. Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning,” Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 49, pp. 345–375.1998.
[21] R. L. Jorczak, “An information processing perspective on divergence and convergence in collaborative learning,” Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, vol. 6, pp. 207–221, 2011.
[22] S. Bronack, R. Riedl, and J. Tashner, “Learning in the zone: A social constructivist framework for distance education in a 3-dimensional virtual world,” Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 14, pp. 219-232, 2006.
[23] V. Chang, C. Gütl, S. Kopeinik & R. Williams, “Evaluation of collaborative learning settings in 3D virtual worlds,” International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, vol.3, pp. 6-17, 2009.
[24] R. Hanewald, “Learners and collaborative learning in virtual worlds,” Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, vol. 14, pp. 233-247, 2013.
[25] K. F. Hew & W. S. Cheung, “Use of three-dimensional (3-D) immersive virtual worlds in K-12 and higher education settings: A review of the research,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 41, pp. 33-55, 2010.
[26] I. Reisoglu, B. Topu, R. Yilmaz, T. K. Yilmaz, and Y. Goktas, “3D virtual learning environments in education: a meta-review,” Asia Pacific Education Review, vol. 18, pp. 81-100, 2017.
[27] E. T Hall, The Hidden Dimension. Anchor Books, 1996.
[28] J. N. Bailensen, J. Blascovich, A. C. Beall, and J. M. Loomis, “Interpersonal Distance in Immersive Virtual Environments,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 29, 7, pp. 819-833, 2003.
[29] C. S. Dodson & A. P. Shimamura, “Differential effects of cue dependency on item and source memory,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, vol. 26, pp. 1023–1044, 2000.
[30] S. M. Smith & E. Vela, “Environmental context-dependent memory: A review and metaanalysis,” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, vol. 8, pp. 203–220, 2001.
[31] Y. Sun & H. Wang, “Insight into others’ minds: spatio-temporal representations by intrinsic frame of reference,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol.8, pp. 58, 2014.
[32] A. Abraham, M. Werning, H. Rakoczy, D. Y. von Cramon & R. I. Schubotz, “Minds, persons,and space:an fMRI investigation into the relational complexity of higher-order intentionality,” Conscious Cognition. vol. 17, pp. 438–450, 2008.
[33] P. Boechler, K. Dragon & E. Wasniewski, “Relationships between Digital Literacy and Print Literacy: Predictors of Successful On-line Search,” In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012, pp. 1755-1758, 2012.
[34] M. Kozhevnikov & M. Hegarty, “A dissociation between object manipulation spatial ability and spatial orientation ability,” Memory & Cognition, vol. 29, pp. 745-756, 2001.
[35] M. Hegarty, A. E. Richardson, D. R. Montello, K. Lovelace & I. Subbiah, “Development of a self-report measure of environmental spatial ability,” Intelligence, vol. 30, pp. 425-47, 2002.