Faculty adoption of virtual worlds remains low. Understanding the barriers, constraints, and motivations of existing adopters as well as non-adopters may help explain and provide guidance on how to improve faculty consideration and adoption of virtual worlds as a learning environment. Six virtual world adopters and two non-adopters were interviewed individually to answer the question: how do faculty and staff come to adopt or not adopt virtual worlds as a learning environment. An analysis using the transcriptions, the developed narrative stories, and the supporting field notes, found six recurring themes: personal relevance of the technology, cost is an issue but not a showstopper, learning is not alone, sound pedagogical integration is a must, adopter commitment, and adopter characteristics. The adoption process found in this study is compared to Roger’s Innovation Decision Process. Follow-on research efforts are also presented. This was presented at the 2012 Association for Educational Communications and Technology annual convention.

1. Faculty Adoption of Virtual Worlds:
Process and Factors
Susan Dass
Nada Dabbagh
George Mason University
AECT
November 1, 2012

2. Agenda
 Objective
 Conceptual Framework
 Methodology
 Results
 Limitations / Recommendations

3. Problem
 Students are more technology savvy than faculty
 Students expect technology enhanced classes
 Virtual worlds can be appropriate for learning
 Virtual worlds still in the ‘trough of disillusionment’
 Why aren’t more faculty using virtual worlds
Next generation of digital natives
27-month old using her iPhone
at the airport, 28Dec11

4. Virtual Worlds: Definitions and Types
 3D, online, persistent, interactive environment
accessible by many users simultaneously
 Role-playing, working, training, mirror, or social
 Emphasis on communication, community building,
open-ended, and ability to create in-world artifacts
There Active Worlds Second Life

5. Virtual Worlds (SL): Inherent Characteristics
Presence
Awareness
Community
Immersive
Search
Search
Search
Search
Friends
Friends
Friends
Inventory
Inventory
Maps
Maps
Chat
Avatar
Snapshot
SL LMS:
Sloodle
Text Chat Voice Avatar

6. Study Purpose
 Identify the adoption process and factors that
influence faculty adoption of virtual worlds as a
learning environment
• Factor A
• Factor B
• Factor C
L M N=O

7. Literature Review
 Survey by Roberts, Kelley, & Medlin (2007)
 Accounting faculty
 Adoption of technology in general
 Rate factors influencing adoption decision
 Lenses: social, organizational, individual
 Factors based on research prior to 2005
 Survey by Bowers, Ragas, & Neely (2009)
 Faculty from 25 disciplines
 Adoption of Second Life, specifically
 Rate factors influencing adoption decision
 Perception: positive impact on student learning
 93.8% would use Second Life again

8. Factor Ranking (most to least influential)
Roberts et al. (2007) Technology Bowers et al. (2009) Second Life
1 Physical resources (hard/software) …to enhance student learning
2 Personal interest...to improve teaching … in instructional technology
3 …to enhance student learning …to improve teaching
4 … in instructional technology Physical resources (hard/software)
5 Shared department values Student enthusiasm
6 Students Peer support
7 Peer support Mass media
8 Friends Academic journals / conferences
9 University mandate Admin / Department support
10 Peer pressure Linden Lab support
11 Formal recognition Colleague success stories
12 Mentors Well-established use of ed. in SL
13 Institutional reward

9. Conceptual Framework
INFLUENCES
DECISION TO
ADOPT VIRTUAL
WORLDS
TECHNICAL ORGANIZATIONAL STUDENTS PERSONAL
- Ease of Use - Authority Figures - Acceptance - Impetus
- Bandwidth - Work Place - Learning - Motivation
- Peers - Beliefs
External Influences Internal Influences

10. Significance of this Study
 Little research exists on virtual world adoption
 Identify factors and processes germane
to the adoption of virtual worlds by faculty
 Understand perceived barriers and adopter
motivations to help improve faculty consideration
and adoption of virtual worlds

11. Research Questions
 How did participants come to adopt, or not adopt,
a virtual world? Why?
What influences the participants’ decision to
adopt or not adopt a virtual world as a
learning environment?
 What do they see as the advantages and
disadvantages of using virtual worlds? Why?

12. Method
 Qualitative research
 Purposeful, convenience sampling
 One-on-one interviews
 IRB approved

13. Participants
Pseudonym Profession Began Interest
w/VW
Matthew1 Retired Military 2007 Reconnaissance, training
Lewis Faculty 2001 K12 gaming for education
Kalvin1 Faculty 2006 Instructional technology students
and government agencies
Sadie2 Post-doc 2004 Foreign language learning
researcher
Kent Faculty 2006 Research economic behavior
and educate students
Natalie Faculty 2007 Informed non-adopter
Sheila Faculty 2000 & ’04 Informed non-adopter
Kathy DoD researcher 2006 Research and promote use of
virtual worlds
Interviews in person or by telephone 1 or by Skype 2

14. Interview Guide
1. How do you feel about the use of technology in education?
2. What is your role relative to the use of virtual worlds?
3. How did you get started using virtual worlds?
4. Were there issues getting started with virtual worlds?
5. How long have you been working with virtual worlds?
6. What do you see as the main advantages of using virtual
worlds in education?
7. Do you think virtual worlds are being used at the college level?
8. Describe a recent project or activity involving virtual worlds

15. Analysis
 Transcribed, took memos
 Chronological narratives: pare to the germane
 Participant validation
 Themes: holistic-content approach
 Narratives and transcription

16. Participant Stories
Pseudonym Profession Began Interest
w/VW
Matthew1 Retired Military 2007 Reconnaissance, training
Lewis Faculty 2001 K12 gaming for education
Kalvin1 Faculty 2006 Instructional technology students
and government agencies
Sadie2 Post-doc 2004 Foreign language learning
researcher
Kent Faculty 2006 Research economic behavior
and educate students
Natalie Faculty 2007 Informed non-adopter
Sheila Faculty 2000 & ’04 Informed non-adopter
Kathy DoD researcher 2006 Research and promote use of
virtual worlds
Interviews in person or by telephone 1 or by Skype 2

17. Results: Themes
 Personal relevance
 Cost is an issue but not a showstopper
 Learning is not alone
 User characteristics
 User commitment
 Sound pedagogical integration

18. Adoption Process Map
The Spark The Journey The
Product
Learning is Not Alone;Cost not showstopper Sound
Pedagogical
Personal Relevance User Characteristics User Commitment
Integration

19. Innovation Decision Process
Communication Channels
PRIOR CONDITIONS:
1. Previous Practice
2. Felt Needs / Problems 1. Knowledge 2. Persuasion 3. Decision 4. Implementation 5. Confirmation
3. Innovativeness
4. Social System Norms
1. Adoption Continued Adoption
DECISION MAKER PERCEIVED Later Adoption
CHARACTERISTICS CHARACTERISTICS OF
1. Socioeconomic characteristics THE INNOVATION Discontinuance
2. Personality Variables 1. Relative Advantage
3. Communication Behavior 2. Compatibility 2. Rejection Continued Rejection
3. Complexity
4. Trialability
5. Observability
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.), New York, NY: Free Press. (p. 170)

20. Adoption Process Map vs Roger’s Model
The Spark The Journey The
Product
Learning is Not Alone;Cost not showstopper Sound
Pedagogical
Personal Relevance User Characteristics User Commitment
Integration
1. Knowledge 2. Persuasion 3. Decision 4. Implementation 5. Confirmation

21. Conclusions
 Personal relevance is important
 Decision to adopt seems immediate
 Implementation is a long process
 Sound pedagogical integration is a must

22. Limitations
 Researcher bias
 Sample population
 Self-report on past experience

23. Next Steps
 Categorizing strategy
 Expand to broader audience
 Exploratory factor analysis
 Develop a scaffolding intervention

24. Questions?