MUVEs are inherently complex because they are not a single technology but a collection of tools and services clustered around a 3D centre. They require users to grapple with instant messaging, searching and 2D/3D navigation at a minimum. Even students who enjoy working in a MUVE find the environment challenging, something which raises the question ‘Why not use something simpler?’! This in turn leads us to ask what is uniquely provided by a MUVE that can’t be replicated in a simpler form.

Over the course of the 15 month Open Habitat project one of the notions which emerged from the diverse pilots was the students’ sense that they had spent time with others online in the same ‘place’ and that the pilot activities were ‘experienced’ rather than ‘worked through’.

“You do get a sense of being in a physical group and therefore are more aware of yourself as a group participant, therefore there is far less of a feeling of ‘being on one’s own’, which is of course is very encouraging.” (Philosophy pilot participant.)

The feeling of being part of an event which involved a shared activity intermingled with banter and informal chat began to highlight what MUVEs were best, but not necessarily unique, at providing. The ability to provide a space for informal, social, experiential learning puts the MUVEs’ strengths at the subjective and occasionally esoteric end of the pedagogy spectrum; these are not factors that are easy to quantify but they are present when an ethnographic approach is taken to collecting data.

The notion of being part of a shared event and of feeling present with other students help to map the potential of a MUVE against the other options that a teaching practitioner might choose to deliver learning. Mapping the position of the MUVE relative to other platforms in this way provides a frame of reference for the Open Habitat project. The figure here plots a range of online tools that are increasingly considered to have potential for use in Higher Education. I have posited two axes, one which I have labelled ‘Eventedness’ which demarcates a continuum between students learning as individuals and learning as a communal activity; the other is labelled ‘Co-presence’ as it depicts a related yet different concept in which students’ experience of learning is one of isolation or of belonging.

Key here is that the green areas demarcate the potential experience; they are not a simple objective mapping of technological functionality. Because of the subjective nature of the axes the relative position of the platforms in the diagram will shift depending on individual experience. The important point is that MUVEs have the potential to provide a high breadth of types of experience. This is partially due to their use of avatars but it is also an effect of their containing a complex cluster of numerous communication and development tools. So, for example:

At point ‘a’ in the diagram individuals might feel isolated and alienated, all the more so because they suspect that somewhere in the MUVE vibrant social activity (between people with fantastic hairstyles) is taking place that they are not party to.

At point ‘b’ individuals will feel a strong sense of being part of a group and taking part in a shared experience. When they log off they will feel as if they were part of an intense event in which they spent time with others. They may feel that they got to know the other participants better through this experience.

At point ‘c’ individuals are probably spending time with people they know and trust. They are socialising within the MUVE but are not attempting to achieve anything beyond simply being together. They are likely to feel part of a community even though there is no communal ‘goal’.

It is this breadth of potential that makes teaching in MUVEs a high risk activity. A good session could go beyond anything that could be achieved in other online platforms in terms of student satisfaction whereas a bad session could leave everyone feeling that it would have been better to have used text or voice chat or a simple online forum. We also need to recognise that the experience of learning with and within a MUVE will differ from student to student as demonstrated in the reaction to co-presence of two of the art and design students:

“I’m surprised you can build anything and do anything in it, really. I think that’s what surprised me. But also I think it’s a bit weird, like everyone is actually a person as well. Like I avoid talking to people because I always forget they’re actually really people. I just think it’s a bit weird.”

“Its inspired new ideas of where I can apply my work and it’s a lot easier to try these things out on Second Life than in real life… knowing that people are out there and may come across it [her work in Second Life] makes me think about how my work is applied and what other people think about it...”

However, I would suggest that this breadth of potential means that if you do not feel that terms like ‘communal’, ‘experience’ or ‘belonging’ are of any relevance to your practice then MUVEs are not likely to be the best  space for your style of teaching or research. On the other hand, we live at a time in which the web is increasingly offers education the possibility of creating community without requiring physical presence and of peer interaction online in a more-than-textual fashion. Education has always valued the social and recognised its importance in students’ overall learning. If this is important to you and your students, then, with a little persistence, MUVEs could be a valuable space for you to use in your teaching.