Overcoming Objections to MUVEs in Education - Teaching through Multi-User Virtual Environments - page 3

face. Indeed, much of the resistance that may be
encountered will be of a reflexive nature that does
not lend itself well to self-examination, research
or publishing by the resistors. An administrator
who sees no use for MUVEs in their school is
not the most likely candidate to publish an article
about why they do not want that innovation. The
teacher whose proposal to bring a MUVE into
their classroom has been rejected by their ad-
ministration is not likely to be inspired to write a
scholarly paper on why they cannot use MUVEs.
A Google search produces no results for terms
like “why schools don't use MUVEs”. Yet logic
suggests that there must be obstacles to bringing
MUVEs to classrooms. In Second Life more than
4000 people belong to the Second Life Education
(SLED) group, but only about 200 educators are
actually holding any classes in the environment
and only twelve K-12 “virtual school houses”
existed on the Teen Grid in 2008 (Perchar, 2008).
The disparity in numbers between those interested
and those implementing implies the existence of
obstacles to implementation.
A catalog of obstacles can be compiled by
taking a broader approach than is common in
a conventional literature review. Substituting
terms like “virtual worlds” or “games” turns up
literature that warns of the reputed dangers of the
broad spectrum of immersive synthetic media
(Anderson et al., 2003; Berger, 2002; Walsh et al.,
2004). These accounts tend to focus on violence
in video games (Anderson et al., 2003, Walsh et
al., 2004) or against isolation of the individuals
immersed in computer media (Johnson, 2005).
That the authors are not specifically addressing
MUVEs is not sufficient reason to dismiss their
concerns. Many of those who will raise objec-
tions to MUVEs do not have enough knowledge
of MUVEs to tell game from non-game MUVEs
or even from non-MUVE games. Another way to
add to the catalog of objections to MUVEs is to
review articles critiquing specific MUVEs and,
where possible, extend the negative criticism to
the entire domain. With a reported ten million

accounts, Second Life has one of the largest user
bases among MUVEs and has therefore received
more media and research attention than most oth-
ers. Fears for the safety of children (Perchar, 2008),
commercial contamination (Boellstroff, 2008) and
rampant sexual licentiousness (Wagner, 2007)
may be extended by association to other MUVEs.

COmmON OBjeCTIONS TO mUVeS

Since the average person without MUVEs experi-
ence cannot tell a non-game virtual environment
from a computer or video game, some of the ob-
jections they are likely to raise will be inspired by
preconceptions about games. This section identi-
fies the most common charges leveled at computer
and video games and presents an elaboration fol-
lowed by a refutation or an explanation intended
to overcome or at least soften those objections.
Most of the negative opinions formed about games,
and by extension MUVEs, are inspired by stories
in the news media or through contact with third
parties who play games or use MUVEs (Kutner
and Olson, 2008). When experienced gamers or
“MUVErs” have negative beliefs about MUVEs
they are usually specific rather than blanket ob-
jections to the medium. One likely explanation
is that their greater familiarity with the medium
allows them to form more complex assessments.
Or, in terms of Johnson-Laird's (1983) mental
model theory, exposure has allowed them to de-
velop a more sophisticated mental model of the
MUVEs. More sophisticated models tend to lead
to more nuanced understanding of complex issues
and undermine a tendency to broad generalities.
The following objections are not listed in order
of significance. All those objections that mention
games should be understood to stem from seeing
MUVEs and games as the same medium and
should be read with the opening “MUVEs look
like games and…”