Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 70 (2012) 475477 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhcs

Editorial

Exploring User Experience (UX) in virtual learning environments

The idea for the present special issue was born out of our mutual interest in contributing to the limited body of empirical work on User Experience in Virtual Learning Environments. The term, User Experience (UX), delineates a multifaceted and complicated process that embraces analysis, strategic business branding, planning, concept, and participatory design, and change in modern organizational cultures. Because of that, many different approaches have evolved and a universal denition of UX is difcult to identify. Sometimes UX is assumed to be synonymous with usability, interaction experience, and interaction design. Yet UX also seems to involve much more than those approaches. Thus, UX is dened, according to ISO9241210 (2010), as focusing on a personusers perceptions and responses that result from the use and/or anticipated use of a product, system, or service. Hassenzahl and Tractinsky (2006) as pioneer researchers in the eld describe UX as a consequence of a users internal state (predispositions, expectations, needs, motivation, mood, etc.), the characteristics of the designed system (usability, functionality), and the context within which the interaction occurs (such as the organizational and social setting). We might summarize therefore that UX is a dynamic process that changes over time and involves two important qualities: traditional HCI usability and accessibility balanced with hedonic and affective design (Hassenzahl and Tractinsky, 2006). Several areas of research related to UX include educational learning activities in general and virtual world design and evaluation specically. As well, the collection of user data over time is another area that is gaining momentum (Fenko et al., 2010; Karapanos et al., 2009). Finally research efforts continue to emphasize the interdependent relationship between design and evaluation approaches, including age-old debates on the strengths and weaknesses of quantitative versus qualitative methods and theory versus practice (Obrist et al., 2011). Interestingly, very few UX research efforts have been applied to Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) (SavinBaden et al., 2011). By VLEs, we mean a wide spectrum of technology-enabled learning environments ranging from typical Learning Management Systems (LMSs), to computer games and Virtual Worlds (VWs). As they became solid technological platforms, LMSs have been the cornerstone for more than a decade and continue to show
1071-5819/$ - see front matter & 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.05.001

promise for educational technologists. On the other hand, digital serious games have long provided for an alternative instructional medium that attracts learners motivation. With the advent of Massive Multiplayer Online Games (MMOGs) and Virtual Worlds (VWs), the interest of educational researchers and practitioners has been refueled (DeSantis, 2012). Numerous researchers have elaborated on the potential that VWs hold teaching and learning practices. Virtual worlds, loosely dened, can include any online environment that facilitates community formation and maintenance (for example, game spaces, social networking applications, learning management systems, and 3D virtual environments), although most researchers stress the simulated nature of VWs as being their distinguishing feature. Thus, although many VWs facilitate searching, connecting, authoring, highlighting, and information collection and retrieval, their special attribute is that they allow users to navigate some form of virtual space and to connect with other users either textually or graphically. Multi-User Domains, ObjectOriented (MUD/MOOs) or Multi-User Virtual Environments (MUVEs) are common examples of text-based VWs and Second Life or MMOGs are typical examples of graphics-based VWs. Ultimate directions for the design and evaluation of virtual worlds are still very much under development and Duncan et al. (2012) conclude that, in addition to elaborating on instructional and learning theories to account for these environments, issues of usability and UX is also an important area for future research. In terms of educational opportunities for VWs, VWs support rich interactions, context-based visualizations, immersion, community development, and content building (Schroeder, 2008; Warburton, 2009). Hence the importance of contributing empirical research studies that document user experience (UX) and usability approaches to these learning worlds. UX integrates the full range of usability methods (Nielsen and Mack, 1994; Trenner and Bawa, 1998) into the design and redesign process of hardware and software applications but, only recently, have these methods been applied to virtual learning environments (Squires, 1999; Zaharias, 2004; Zaharias and Poulymenakou, 2009). Regarding this special issue, our main objective was to collect high-quality empirical manuscripts that researched

476

Editorial / Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 70 (2012) 475477

some aspect of UX as it related to VLEs. After the completion of the review process, three articles were nally included in this special issue. The rst describes a framework for understanding and measuring UX while playing adaptive educational games. The second investigates the importance of perceived t of and satisfaction with a VLE stressing UX factors related to learner use continuation and increased learner motivation. The third paper examines collaborative learning and UX factors in a virtual world, a LMS, and in face-to-face settings. Efe Law and Xu Sun describe a digital educational game, 80Days, a geography game designed for use by 10- and 11year olds. The authors propose a multidimensional framework for describing the importance of UX to adaptive digital educational games. Their framework includes the users gaming experiences (for example, challenge, ow, immersion, and so on) and learning experiences (for example, content appropriateness, understandability of goals, quality of feedback, etc.), game adaptivity (attention and learner response to instructional stimuli), and general usability (navigation, ease of control, learnability, responsiveness). Borrowing from Engestroms (1993) activity system model, Law and Sun elaborate on how activity theory allows them to attend to subjects experiences using games while at the same time accounting for social and cultural levels of participation: subjects are players, objects are game tasks, tools are the game features, community is the research team, rules are the game rules, and division of labor distinguishes players from observers and from researchers. The authors employed Dyadic User experience tests (DUxt) to measure learning experience, gaming experience, and general usability. DUxt involves pairing two participants together and asking them to perform a talk-aloud protocol as they play. Observational data and semistructured interviews augment the DUxt transcripts. Wen-Shan Lin describes a VLE that supports the exchange of teaching materials and that facilitates learner interaction around contributed project materials. The VLE is part of a blended learning course on information systems fundamentals for higher education students and the author focuses on the relationship between technology acceptance and continued use by the learners. This research highlights the importance of perceived t of and satisfaction with a VLS in terms of learner use continuation and increased learner motivation. The framework inuencing this study of technology, acceptance, through to performance is TAM (the Technology Acceptance Model outlined by Yen et al., 2010). A ve-point Likert scale was tested in a pilot study and then employed here to capture perceived t, satisfaction, VLS continuance intention, and perceived impacts on learning. The instrument was administered to the 165 participants at the end of every week of the 18-week course semester. The results suggest that perceived t is related to satisfaction and VLS continuance intention; moreover, learner satisfaction is related to VLS continuance intention and that this, in turn, is related to positive

perceptions of learning. Effective design and deployment of VLS environments depends on learner acceptance of the system. Indeed, continued use of a VLS positively inuences learner performance with the system, a nding that conrms the importance of designing for ease of use. Alistair Sutcliffe and Amal Al Rayes describe two studies of collaborative learning using Second Life. The rst study is an ecological study of Second Life with an undergraduate class, including observation, interviews, and limited surveys. The second is empirical and compares the effectiveness and user experience with Second Life, Blackboard, and face-to-face settings. The results of the rst study suggest that students are able to successfully use Second Life and that their general response to the experience is positive. In particular, learners felt actively involved in the experience worked in the space frequently. The second study investigates the collaborative effectiveness of virtual worlds, in this case Second Life and Blackboard. Sixty-three participants self-selected teams to work on a survival prioritization problem related to being lost in the desert, lost at sea, or trying to survive on the moon. Results suggest that participants prefer Blackboard over Second Life. The authors speculate that, since Blackboard is well known to most participants, it may be that familiarity inuenced this difference. Speed to accomplish the learning task was greatest in the face-to-face condition, followed by Blackboard, with Second Life last. These results bare out in terms of group interaction, post-test rating scores, environment scores, and satisfaction with decisions made. The authors conclude that, although virtual worlds (for example, Second Life) may have a positive inuence on learner motivation and engagement, convention Learning Management Systems (LMSs such as Blackboard) may be preferred by learners. One major shortcoming of Second Life in this study was that it supported knowledge construction poorly versus learner communication and team activities. We hope you enjoy reading these articles as much was we enjoyed the process of receiving and reading them ourselves. We believe the special issue brings together two complex areas of inquiry, UX and VLEs, both growing in importance and gaining research and practitioner attention as we write. We hope that the three articles presented here offer a useful introduction to developing research area and that they stimulate the development of additional studies related to this important focus. We conclude by offering special thanks to the talented reviewers who participated in this process. Without their generous support and expertise, this special issue would not have been possible: Chee Siang Ang, Leonard Annetta, Paul Ayres, Regina Bernhaupt, Andrea De Lucia, Rita Francese, Andreas Holzinger, Jeroen Janssen, Evangelos Karapanos, Panayiotis Koutsabasis, Zhanshan (Sam) Ma, Shailey Minocha, Lennart E. Nacke, Timo Partala, Simos Retalis, Maria Roussou, Jeff Sauro, Paul van Schaik, Leen-Kiat Soh, Mark Springett, and Spyros Vosinakis.

Editorial / Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 70 (2012) 475477

477

References
DeSantis, N., 2012. A boom time for education start-ups: despite recession investors see technology companies Internet moment. The Chronicle, March 18. Available online: /http://chronicle.com/ article/A-Boom-Time-for-Education/131229/?sid=cc&utm_source= cc&utm_medium=enS. Duncan, I., Miller, A., Jiang, S., 2012. A taxonomy of virtual worlds usage in education. British Journal of Educational Technology 1 (1), 116. Engestrom, Y., 1993. Developmental studies of work as a testbench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. In: Chaiklin, S., Lave, J. (Eds.), Understanding practice:perspectives on activity and context. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 64103. Fenko, A., Schifferstein, H.N.J., Hekkert, P., 2010. Shifts in sensory dominance between various stages of user-product interactions. Applied Ergonomics 41, 3440. Hassenzahl, M., Tractinsky, N., 2006. User experience a research agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology 25 (2), 9197. Karapanos, E., Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., Martens, J.-B., 2009. User experience over time: an initial framework. In: CHI 09 Proceedings. ACM, pp. 729738. Nielsen, J., Mack, R.L. (Eds.), 1994. John Wiley, New York, NY. Obrist, M., Law, E., Mattila, K., Roto, V., Vermeeren, A., Kuutti, K., 2011. UX research: what theoretical roots do we build onif any? CHI Extended Abstracts 2011, pp. 165168. Savin-Baden, M., Gourlay, L., Tombs, C., Steils, N., Tombs, G., Mawer, M., 2011. Situating pedagogies, positions and practices in immersive virtual worlds. Educational Research 52 (2), 123133.

Schroeder, R., 2008. Dening virtual worlds and virtual environments. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research 1 (1). Available online: /http:// journals.tdl.org/jvwr/article/view/294/248S. Squires, D., 1999. Usability and educational software design. Interacting with Computers 11 (5), 463466 (Special Issue). Trenner, L., Bawa, J. (Eds.), 1998. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Warburton, S., 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 (3), 414426. Yen, D., Wu, C.S., Cheng, F.F., Huang, Y.W., 2010. Determinants of users intention to adopt wireless technology: an empirical study by integrating TTF with TAM. Computers in Human Behavior 26 (5), 906915. Zaharias, P., 2004. Usability and e-learning: the road towards integration. ACM eLearn 6, 4. Zaharias, P., Poulymenakou, A., 2009. Developing a usability evaluation method for e-learning applications: beyond functional usability. International Journal of HumanComputer Interaction 25 (1), 7598.

Panagiotis Zahariasn Open University of Cyprus, Cyprus E-mail address: zaharias@cs.ucy.ac.cy Brad Mehlenbacher NC State University, USA

Corresponding author.