Tools and guidelines by Moira Hunter

Tools and guidelines for architectural and language communication teaching and learning within immersive online environments

ARCHI21 is an EU‐funded project which aims to get students to use 3D virtual immersive and Web 2.0 environments and to promote the potentialities of these environments in the fields of architecture and design. By adopting a CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) approach, ARCHI21 also seeks to facilitate language learning, while accompanying the process of competence building in architecture and design. ARCHI21 involves six institutional partners in four countries: ‐ Coordination : École nationale supérieure d’architecture de Paris Malaquais (ENSA‐PM, France) ; ‐ Centre international d’études pédagogiques (CIEP, France) ; ‐ The Open University (OP, United Kingdom); ‐ Univerza v Ljubljani – Fakulteta za Arhitekturo (UL‐FA, Slovenia); ‐ Aalborg Universitet (AAU, Denmark) ; ‐ The University of Southampton (SO, United Kingdom).

Tools and guidelines for architectural and language communication teaching and learning within immersive online environments A document produced by Scott C. Chase, Aalborg University, Denmark

Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 5 Terminology used on the project .................................................................................................................. 5 Affordances .............................................................................................................................................................. 6 Comparison of Tools............................................................................................................................................ 8 Tips & guidelines ................................................................................................................................................. 12 Introducing new methods & technology ............................................................................................ 12 Teaching in virtual worlds......................................................................................................................... 13 Model of Cybergogy ................................................................................................................................. 13 CLIL and language mediation................................................................................................................... 14 Tips for CLIL Mediators ......................................................................................................................... 14 Learning Objects............................................................................................................................................. 16 Recommendations for use in a CLIL context ............................................................................... 17 References .............................................................................................................................................................. 19 Bibliography: Virtual worlds: education, built environment, benchmarking ...................... 19

Introduction The ARCHI21 project has used a variety of methods and tools in its goal promoting 3D virtual immersive and Web 2.0 environments in architecture and design teaching, learning and practice, in conjunction with a CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) approach (Coyle et al. 2010). Methods and tools described here fall into several categories: ď&#x201A;ˇ

Widely adopted and proven tools, with some used in new contexts for project activities;

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Tools and methods developed by project partners;

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Other tools (some still in beta testing), used in an experimental manner.

This report contains descriptions and comparisons of affordances, tools, features, methods and guidelines for all aspects of the project (architectural and language communication teaching and learning within the virtual world environment) available for educators, learners and design practitioners. A bibliography of selected papers on the use of virtual worlds in design and education is included at the end of this report.

Terminology used on the project Target language is an additional language for the student (i.e. not their primary language) in which some teaching and learning will occur. An aim of CLIL in ARCHI21 is for the student to (further) develop capabilities in the target language through its use in the design curriculum. English, Slovene and French were the project target languages. In-house language teacher refers to a member of institutional staff who has experience working with content teachers and students. In-house language teachers have experience working with students and in most case experience in working with content teachers. External language teacher refers to a language teacher that is not a member of the institutional staff. External language teachers have experience working with students but in most cases not experience in working with content teachers. External language mediator refers to a person trained by in CLIL and Cybergogy (Scopes 2009) during the ARCHI21 project. This person is not a member of the institutional staff and mediates between the students and the teacher as an external language teacher with particular emphasis upon language acquisition and resolving language difficulties. Some mediators have a technical expertise being well versed in in-world teaching techniques and most mediators are language teachers. External language mediators had no prior understanding of the architectural discipline and were not involved in planning learning sessions. Content teacher refers to teachers of architecture or design in partner institutions.

Affordances (adapted from the ARCHI21 report Patterns for the use of CLIL in design and architectural teaching in online media) The ARCHI21 project used a number of technologies in its activities for teaching, communication and public dissemination. Here they are classified by type, with software tools used by the project indicated. A more detailed comparison of the individual tools can be found in the table in the section Comparison of Tools.

Interface Virtual Worlds SecondLife, OpenSim, VAcademia

Pedagogic affordance Collaborative building

Synchronous/ Asynchronous

Advantages

Disadvantages

Synchronous

1. Playful environment that allows students to adopt new personas and play with their image. 2. Environment that allows synchronous collaborative building work 3. Virtual worlds such as SecondLife are full of objects and buildings created by others that can be repurposed for new projects but also toured and critically examined for educational purposes 4. In-world tools allow posting of presentations, videos and hyperlinks.

1. Learning to operate and navigate in-world takes practice. Additionally, building work can be done with other established software lessening the motivation to learn a new interface. 2. May pose technical challenges depending on hardware setup. 3. Only recordable from one viewpoint and requires screen-capture software for this. 4. The virtual world environment external to the pedagogic island is outside the control of teachers. 5. Use of in-world tools to set up environments and presentation boards requires knowledge and expertise. 6. Costly to maintain.

Synchronous with recording possible for asynchronous use

1. Interfaces generally require little practice to use. 2. Can be used at all stages of project development for sharing and critiquing of ideas. 3. Used in real-world practice where distance is an issue. 4. Can be combined with other tools such as SketchUp or Google Earth to provide real-time collaborative experiences. 5. Can link out to websites and present video as well as images and presentations.

1. Interfaces in which use of the microphone has to be passed between users, do not lend themselves to free conversation. 2. Teaching sessions in this medium can become tutor-centric particularly if participants do not all know one another. 3. Unless combined with other tools these media only allow working and presentation in 2D.

Collective experience and critiquing of 3D buildings Virtual world tours

Online Conferencing GoToMeeting, Blackboard, AdobeConnect Skype

Presentation and discussion of ideas Critiquing of presented work Small group collaboration File sharing

Interface

Pedagogic affordance

Synchronous/ Asynchronous

Online Presentation

Presentation of ideas

Asynchronous

1. Allows students to present their work online. 2. Knovio allows webcam video recording plus PowerPoint presentation.

1. One way presentational tool, discussion has to take place in another medium e.g. email or one of the online conferencing interfaces.

Presentation of ideas, creations and research

Asynchronous

1. Allows students to develop an online portfolio of work and found objects as a discussion point with other students. 2. Allows dialogue around visual artefacts. 3. Online studio interface with video and audio capability allows oral interaction, rehearsal and correction of language as well as textual communication. 4. Video upload capability allows students to make and remake presentations utilising target language. 5. Static images, video, audio and textual communication combined in one interface.

1. Asynchronous nature of interface means feedback is not immediate. 2. In some online studio interfaces, discussion may be artefact based rather than thematic.

Knovio, Vimeo, SlideShare Online Studio Open Design Studio, Flickr

Advantages

Disadvantages

Comparison of Tools The technologies described in the section Affordances are elaborate here with a comparison of the various software tools used on the ARCHI21 project.

Description of features Video: video can be displayed Audio: audio can be played Text chat: synchronous text-based chat Audio chat: synchronous audio conversations Text msg: asynchronous text messaging Audio msg: asynchronous audio messaging Presentation: provides presentation capabilities within the environment Avatar: user has an avatar representation in the environment

Audio msg

Presentation

Avatar

Best known VW, well established, variety of uses Based on SL platform; most open

ARCHI21 project use

Text msg

Notes

Audio chat

Cost

Text chat

Software

Audio

Features

Video

URL

project activity

download

free & paid subscriptions

off project

download

open source

3D immersive environments (virtual worlds) Second Life Open Sim

secondlife.com opensimulator.org

Text msg

Audio msg

Presentation

Avatar

Unity 3D (development platform)

Audio chat

Cloud Party

Text chat

Active Worlds

ARCHI21 project use

Audio

VAcademia

Features

Video

URL

investigated

cloudparty.com

investigated

unity3d.com

investigated

vacademia.com activeworlds.com

Software

Cost

download

free & paid subscriptions

browser + downloads browser based viewer: browser; developer: software

free & paid subscriptions free player free, developer licensed (limited free development version)

Notes

Education focus; 3D session recording; integrated teaching & collaborative learning tools Oldest commercial VW environment New Game development engine supporting mobile devices; some VW shift to this platform

online VLEs Moodle

moodle.org

Open Design Studio

http://bit.ly/16XG4RY

project activity project activity

Open source

General virtual learning environment Asynchronous collaborative design environment

Online conferencing systems Adobe Connect

http://adobe.ly/bZJ2 mn

project activity

1 2

Comments Audio & video comments

Enterprise & individual subscriptions; 30 day trial

Audio/video conferencing

skype.com

project activity

knovio.com

project activity

ustream.com

project activity

livestream.com

project activity

Subscription; 30 day trial free & premium packages

x x

Cost

Notes

Avatar

Presentation

project activity

Audio msg

Audio chat

gotomeeting.com

Text msg

ARCHI21 project use

Text chat

Skype

Software

Audio

GoToMeeting

Features

Video

URL

Audio/video conferencing Audio/video chat/conferencing

Online presentation systems Knovio

Ustream

LiveStream

Vimeo

vimeo.com

project activity

Err or! Bo ok ma rk no t de fin ed.

PowerPoint video presentations

browser viewer: browser; producer: browser+downloa d Viewer; browser; producer;browser +download

free & paid subscriptions

Live video streaming

free & paid subscriptions

Live video streaming

free & paid subscriptions

Video archive

Flickr

flickr.com

project activity

Err or! Bo ok ma rk no t de fin ed.

Cost

Notes

free

Photo/video archive

Avatar

Presentation

Audio msg

Software Text msg

Audio chat

Text chat

ARCHI21 project use

Audio

Features

Video

URL

Tips & guidelines

The guidelines, recommendations, suggestions and tips in this section arose in great part from the knowledge acquired by project participants over the course of the project; some appear in greater detail in other project reports.

Introducing new methods & technology Much of the following may seem obvious, but, based on the experience of the ARCHI21 project, it bears repeating, particularly when it comes to the use of technology. Support from teaching staff (and students) is essential. Introduction of new methods into a curriculum without support from one’s colleagues could make things very difficult. Presentations to peers as well as Trial runs, Teach the teachers and Induction courses help pave the way. Integration into the curriculum is also essential. New methods and technology may be introduced in Trial runs, but the overall aim is to have this become an integral part of the curriculum, so that teachers and students a) see its value; b) don’t see it as a (significant) disruption to teaching & learning; and b) will adopt it beyond the lifetime of the teaching activity in which it is introduced. Trial runs can be very important and useful. Try to plan your development and introduction to allow the piloting of new methods/technology, preferably with a small group of students. Teach the teachers. If more than one person is involved with the teaching (including support), allow adequate time to instruct them (with possible trial runs) before the primary teaching exercise. Having knowledgeable instructors who can lead teaching is essential. See Induction courses. Induction courses (for teachers and students) can provide an introduction to the methodology or technology, enough to provide the learners the ability to independently continue knowledge and skills acquisition. Use a ‘belt-and-braces’ approach to dissemination and communication, i.e. multiple ways for instructors to present and communicate with students (Chase and Scopes, 2012). This is essential if there is a possibility of one method/technology failing (particularly during a teaching session). The ability to switch modes of presentation or communication requires additional preparation and practice, but will allow teaching to continue with minimal interruption, and (depending on setup) allow students to choose a method of communication and accessing content (possibly dependent upon resources at hand and a student’s ability). Example: ARCHI21 building classes in Second Life provided multiple ways of viewing the lecture slides and being present in the class (e.g. in-world, web based screen sharing, web streaming and whiteboard sharing). Several communication channels were available, including SL voice and text chat, with Skype as a voice fallback. Timing. Plan sessions carefully, particularly when using technology. Always allow more time than you initially believe necessary for setup and takedown.

Use lesson plans. For any teaching session that involves more than one activity/mode of delivery, draw up a lesson plan (as detailed as you are willing to make it). Ensure there is flexibility in the plan, so that activities can change according to unanticipated needs (either before or during the session, e.g. technology failures, more time than anticipated for discussion or Q&A). See belt and braces. Chase & Scopes (2012) illustrate the use of a detailed lesson plan for teaching in Second Life, based on a model of cybergogy for virtual worlds (Scopes 2009). Collaborative teaching activities with partners outside one’s department or university requires careful coordination, due to variations amongst partners of a)resources and support (e.g. technology, teaching and technical staff); b) curricula; c) timetables; d) students’ backgrounds. Misalignment of any one of these can make such an exercise difficult, so upfront agreement is paramount. Try to standardise as much as possible. The trend towards distributed working environments can make this difficult. Central computer labs are disappearing, and (depending on institution) most students tend to work on their own laptops, often from home. Speed and reliability of internet and LAN connections are important when using computing intensive software, such as 3D virtual worlds, which generally require good graphics processors and fast internet connections. If one can standardise as much as possible that can help. For example, Second Life and similar virtual worlds support a number of different client browsers. For teaching, it can be helpful to insist that all learners use the same browser, so as to avoid differences in user interfaces. Note: in multi-lingual teaching environments, such as experienced in ARCHI21, participants may have the same software installed in different languages. This can be viewed either as a challenge or an opportunity for content teachers and language mediators, e.g. as a way of introducing technical terminology in the target language of the student. If teaching includes software instruction or assistance, it’s a good idea to check this before commencing teaching activities, possibly by surveying participants beforehand. Surveys before or at the commencement of teaching activities are very helpful, as they aid in assessing students’ backgrounds, e.g. language capabilities in target languages, experience with the technology to be used, This can mitigate any surprises and allow time for any adjustments to teaching if necessary.

Teaching in virtual worlds Model of Cybergogy The pedagogic model Cybergogy of Learning Archetypes and Learning Domains was developed by Scopes (2009) as a means to structure teaching and learning in 3D immersive virtual worlds. The rationale for the model of Cybergogy is to equip educators with appropriate strategies for teaching within 3DiVW’s that do not seek to replicate orthodox classroom methods or standard web-based eLearning techniques, but to take advantage of the affordances of such a 3D immersive environment. The model seeks to impose validity and authenticity to teaching and learning conducted within a

virtual environment. It serves as a planning tool encouraging educators to examine course content, produce detailed lesson plans, and develop teaching and learning resources against a measure of efficacy to ensure that virtual worlds, despite their novelty, are not used gratuitously, that course content is meaningful, pertinent and achievable, and that the educator (who is not necessarily a technology expert) is able to operate. This model of Cybergogy was used for some teaching activities on the ARCHI21 project (Chase & Scopes 2012). Further information on the model and its use can be viewed at http://www.cybergogy.co.uk.

Given some of the affordances of virtual worlds for teaching and learning, learning activities can include any of the following, most of which are synchronous group activities. Examples are presented in Chase & Scopes (2012) and Hunter et. al (2011): 1. Social aspects (Q&A, discussion); 2. Live design and building demonstrations, e.g. in an immersive lighting test chamber; 3. Packaging of ‘toolkits’ of learning resources, which could include traditional materials such as links to web-based resources, but also links to in-world resources (e.g. tools, sites of interest) and 3D interactive objects for students to work with, play with and modify; 4. Collaborative design and building exercises; 5. ‘Show & tell’ that could involve a field trip in the virtual world.

CLIL and language mediation The ARCHI21 project developed a Mediator Induction Course for external language mediators observing and assisting design students who are using target languages in their learning. Mediator communication with students was typically internet-based (i.e. Web 2.0 and virtual world technologies) and the course was developed to reflect this. An important product of the process of developing and implementing the Induction Course was the inworld resource that explains the principles of good CLIL practice based upon a comprehensive view of the subject (Coyle et al. 2010). To help communicate meanings and derivations to mediators, an expanded form was located in a specifically designed Mediator Induction Course called Archi21 Moodle.

Tips for CLIL Mediators 1. Ask students to describe / explain / summarise / compare / differentiate / interpret / evaluate or critique architectural content in the target language.

Note that these skills (describing; explaining; summarising; comparing; differentiating; interpreting; evaluating and critiquing) are listed in order of difficulty. Only a relatively low level of linguistic competence is necessary to ‘describe’ whereas a much higher level is needed to ‘evaluate’ or ‘critique’.

You should judge what the student is capable of in each case and once you have established their ‘comfort zone’ help to move them to a higher level by asking them to perform a more difficult task. 2. Encourage meaningful interaction in an authentic context.

Use aspects of the architectural context ( e.g. in Second Life) and the students’ area of interest and study as a base for interaction. This will help ensure that any interaction is meaningful and relevant for the students. 3. Focus on language as the 'tool' for communication not the object itself.

Avoid getting into long discussions about theoretical issues ( e.g. rules for using a particular tense in a target language). The CLIL approach works best where language is integrated with (architectural) content, and not treated in isolation. In other words, language is not the main but secondary focus to the content itself. 4. Note and log the particular language that students need to perform various linguistic functions.

Because mediation mainly takes place in synchronous communication context (i.e. Second Life) the emphasis is therefore likely to be on the spoken or text chat mode of communication. You should keep a log of relevant functional language, as it comes up, which might serve the students in their architectural context. This can then be referred to and introduced later when needed. Functional language includes useful phrases that express ‘how to’ linguistic operations, e.g. how to ask for clarification: ‘Could you explain that again please?’; ‘I didn’t understand the part about…’ 5. Find opportunities to feed in the language that students need in context so that they have an appropriate model for correct use

Look for ways to prompt and support students linguistically, e.g. via text chat in Second life during a group spoken interaction. 6. Encourage higher order thinking where possible to challenge students.

Find opportunities to move students from linguistically simple operations e.g. describing to a slightly more challenging one e.g. explaining. Try to take them slowly out of their ‘comfort zone’ to enable them to practise skills at a higher level.

7. Listen, prompt, and encourage students to ask questions.

Don’t spend lots of time talking yourself or ‘lecturing’ students. They will retain and learn more if they are active and not passive. Your role is to be a responsive listener and facilitator, guiding but not directing. By taking a less forceful role yourself can help encourage students to speak. 8. Ask students to engage in problem-solving activities around architectural content.

Try to identify knowledge gaps or question solving activities around architectural content that can help stimulate meaningful interaction. 9. Make language learning active and context-focused.

To maximise learning students need to be actively engaged in language interaction opportunities and focus their language use on relevant content relevant to their area of interest and study. 10. Devise ways to promote group work and pair work to stimulate dialogue.

If you are dealing with more than one student, find ways to maximise opportunities for everyone to be involved in interaction/ practise communication skills. 11. Integrate language with the context that students are operating in.

Remember you are operating in a CLIL teaching and learning environment i.e. content and language integrated approach. 12. Aim to help learners bridge the cognitive-linguistic divide.

Mediating effectively also means helping students to do cognitively challenging tasks through the expressive medium of the target language. Therefore as a mediator you should be aiming to improve the students’ ability to do these in parallel. 13. Scaffold and support students' language activity rather than always leading it.

As a mediator, be prepared to take a backseat and let students do more of the speaking. Support unobtrusively where possible, e.g. through help given in text chat in Second Life. 14. Be flexible and able to change your own role and the activity to aid students' learning.

Be adaptable to the learning situation that the students are in which will have content rather than language as its lead focus. 15. Design communicative tasks that build on what students have already done and consolidate learning.

Think ahead to further sessions with students and create opportunities to consolidate and build on linguistic activity and support already introduced/practised. 16. Find ways to consolidate verbal language interactions in a written form (e.g. through encouraging glossary additions or note sharing among students).

While oral /aural skills are key ones in the CLIL approach, opportunities for developing content‐ driven writing and reading skills should not be neglected. For example, student blogs can help with consolidating writing. In terms of data capture, the methodology was enhanced by the provision of systematic recording sheets. Towards the end of the process a form of discourse or mis-cue analysis was established. However, this was not fully developed and only working drafts are available at present. The modus operandi of language mediators was to act as support for the in-world teacher responding both to the teacher requests and also responding to the in-world learners. A second role developed as observer/critic giving asynchronous feedback on learner outputs.

Learning Objects In ARCHI21 Learning Objects (LOs) were created as direct outputs from teaching and learning events/actions that took place through the various media of new technologies, specifically, Second Life, Knovio, Vimeo, UStream, Open Design Studio, GoToMeeting, as part of the project work packages. Learning Objects can be defined as self-contained small units of online learning material, usually combining content with interactive tasks. These Learning Objects take the form of additional

interactive learning resources for students, which can be used asynchronously in a support or bridging role. In other words, they can be used to link classroom teaching and immersive world learning experience/ learning taking place through other new technologies. The 19 LOs developed collaboratively for this project are learning resources for a specific CLIL context, here mapping onto the taught areas of architecture and design programmes and additional languages that were taught. All learning object outputs are now available as OER (open educational resources) under an attribution/ non-commercial / no derivatives Creative Common license. CLIL practitioners in architecture and design, and those working in other discipline areas, may view or use the learning object outputs from the ARCHI21 project. They can be found (and linked to) on the following websites: http://www.archi21.eu http://www.elanguages.ac.uk/archi21.php They have also been uploaded to repositories of open content such as www.languagebox.ac.uk for wider dissemination. The process of collaborating at distance with Architecture and Design experts to produce content for Learning Objects production was successful. Previous experience in cross-disciplinary Learning Object collaboration by the lead WP14 team had helped evolve an approach to working collaboratively across discipline in one institution, the challenge of working with other disciplines based in widely dispersed institutions on this project added a further level of complexity to the collaborations. A broad model for working collaboratively to produce content was implemented: 1. collection and storage of audio-visual output from various work package actions 2. identification of relevant and useful CLIL topics around which the LOs, as teaching and learning resources, could be built 3. identification of suitable content from work package actions matching these needs 4. collaborative planning of LO teaching and learning content around identified work package content ( a shareable planning template was especially developed for this purpose) 5. creation of a draft LO by the University of Southampton team, based on planning sheet, which was then shared with collaborating partner(s) 6. review of output by subject expert and implementation of any changes needed 7. piloting with students and European teachers external to the project 8. refreshment and translation as needed

Recommendations for use in a CLIL context 1. These Learning Objects take the form of additional interactive learning resources for students, which can be used asynchronously, or potentially synchronously, in a support or bridging role in CLIL contexts. 2. As support resources, they can be used within a taught curriculum to link classroom teaching and immersive world learning experience. For this purpose, they can be hosted or linked to in a conventional VLE such as Moodle or Blackboard, or linked to from within an immersive virtual world.

3. They can operate as integrated self-access resources for students to prepare for content- and language-related lessons, or to consolidate such lessons where applicable. 4. Alternatively, they can provide optional self-access learning resources for independent learning or which broadly map with a taught curriculum. 5. They can be integrated with taught lessons and blended with classroom teaching using an activity based approach to such teaching. 6. They can be embedded in an immersive world learning environment in the form of links to interactive webpages. 7. Finally, they can provide a model or exemplars for the development of other CLIL resources focusing on other subjects and other languages.

References Chase S, Scopes L, 2012, "Cybergogy as a framework for teaching design students in virtual worlds", in Digital Physicality - Vol. 1, Proceedings of the 30th eCAADe Conference Eds H Achten, J Pavlíček, J Hulín, D Matějovská (eCAADe & Czech Technical University in Prague, Faculty of Architecture, Czech Republic, Prague) pp 125-133 Coyle D, Hood H, Marsh D, 2010 CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK) Hunter M, Chase S, Kligerman B, Zupancic T, 2011, "ARCHI21: Architectural and Design based Education and Practice through Content & Language Integrated Learning using Immersive Virtual Environments for 21st Century Skills", in Respecting Fragile Places, Proceedings of the 29th Conference on Education in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe Eds T Zupancic, M Juvancic, S Verovsek, A Jutraz (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Architecture, Ljubljana, Slovenia) pp 725-733 Scopes LJ 2009, Learning Archetypes as tools of Cybergogy for a 3D educational landscape: a structure for e-teaching in Second Life, MSc dissertation, University of Southampton, School of Education, UK, http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/66169

Bibliography: Virtual worlds: education, built environment, benchmarking Daden Ltd, 2010, “The Future of Virtual Worlds”, white paper, http://www.daden.co.uk/downloads/The%20Future%20of%20Virtual%20Worlds.pdf Daden Ltd, 2010, “Virtual Worlds for Training and Education”, white paper, http://www.daden.co.uk/downloads/Virtual%20Worlds%20for%20Training%20and%20Education%20 01d2.pdf Daden Ltd, 2011, “Virtual Worlds for the Built Environment”, white paper, http://www.daden.co.uk/downloads/Virtual%20Worlds%20and%20the%20Built%20Environment%200 1.pdf Morozov M, Gerasimov A, Fominykh M, 2012, “vAcademia – Educational Virtual World with 3D Recording”, in 12th International Conference on Cyberworlds Eds A Kuijper, A Sourin (IEEE) pp 199– 206, http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/CW.2012.35 Surakka T, 2012, “Different virtual environments – something for everyone”, in 2nd Global Conference: Experiential Learning in Virtual Worlds Conference, http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/atthe-interface/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/tsurakkawpaper.pdf Surakka T, Hakonen M, 2012, “Benchmark of 3D virtual environments”, report, http://www.vmwork.net/wp-content/uploads//2012/11/Benchmark_Report_5.pdf

This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use, which may be made of the information contained therein. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoncommercialNo Derivative Works 3.0 License