Content uploaded by Shantanu Tilak
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Shantanu Tilak on Apr 08, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Original Manuscript
Multi-User Virtual
Environments (MUVEs)
as Alternative Lifeworlds:
Transformative Learning
in Cyberspace
Shantanu Tilak
1
, Michael Glassman
1
, Irina Kuznetcova
1
,
Joshua Peri
1
, Qiannan Wang
1
, Ziye Wen
1
, and
Amanda Walling
1
Abstract
Direct instruction (PowerPoint presentations, lectures) often imposes hierarchical
classroom structures where the teachers are considered experts, imparting
knowledge to passive learners. However, the emergence of tools like Multi-User
Virtual Environments (MUVEs) encourages the creation of democratic learning
environments. We hypothesize that these tools lead to higher degrees of civil dis-
course within the classroom and create transformative learning trajectories for
students, allowing them to create shared purpose to incite social change. By com-
paring reflectivity displayed in weekly students’ blogging assignments in a classroom
using an MUVE (Second Life), and one using direct instruction, we sought to gauge
the effect MUVEs had on students’ reflectivity with the passage of time. Results
indicated that MUVEs facilitated more critical reflection and transformative learning
trajectories as compared to direct instruction frameworks.
Keywords
critical reflection, transformation, transformative pedagogy
1
Department of Educational Studies, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
Corresponding Author:
Michael Glassman, Department of Educational Studies, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210,
USA.
Email: glassman.13@osu.edu
Journal of Transformative Education
1-28
ªThe Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1541344620932224
journals.sagepub.com/home/jtd
Instrumental and Transformative Reflection in Society and Education
Political, social and educational theorists have suggested the importance of links
between democratic discourse and the purposes of learning environments. The ideas
of Mezirow (1995) and Habermas (1989) exemplify this relationship. The discourse
ethics within the public sphere in Habermas’ framework is associated with commu-
nicative rationality to create balanced solutions to existing social issues. In learning
environments, this relates with making critically reflective arguments through shar-
ing ideas (Joldersma & Crick, 2010). Participatory environments form the backbone
of Mezirow’s transformative learning, which conceptualizes learning as something
that starts with disorienting dilemmas (Taylor, 2007), and culminates into creating
social change through integration of new perspectives into lived experience (Kitch-
enham, 2008; Taylor, 2008).
Critical reflection in higher education is coveted by educators but difficult to
achieve (Mezirow, 1995). It can be fostered through democratic learning environ-
ments. Dewey’s (1916) “continuity” asserts that true learning occurs through adapt-
ing to new information and integrating it into one’s life. This is similar to Mezirow’s
final stage of transformative learning, which involves forging relationships and
engaging in discourse to transform perspectives and social change (Mezirow,
1995, 2003). The transformation that such learning creates is epistemic (it is a
development of thinking rather than just learning; Vygotsky, 1978), as well as rooted
in the transformation of meaning schemes through social interactions (Carter, 2002).
Participatory learning environments open up possibilities for transformative
learning, by allowing individuals to combine varied experiences to achieve a com-
mon end in view and critique different perspectives (Tennant, 1991). Learners act as
free agents who respect individuality and can use ideological variation to add deeper
meaning to their common purpose (Dewey, 1916). Participatory environments for
critical reflection are an important educational goal but are no mean feat. Our society
is hierarchical, and classrooms mirror this by defining the teacher as an expert who
imparts knowledge to students. The teacher always knows better (Freire & Faundez,
1989; McLaren, 2000). Students are explicitly and implicitly trained to perform to
get approval from instructors, which often means forfeiting independent thinking
that might go against the teacher’s (and society’s) expectations. Even if critical
thinking is encouraged, its outcomes tend to be evaluated based on teacher-
defined standards.
Based on Dewey, Habermas and Mezirow, transformative learning propels stu-
dents to advance participatory democracy and improve the human condition. Mezir-
ow’s work is related with Freire’s (1984) and relies on the development of
ontological vocations in individuals who reflect and act upon their world non-
hierarchically (Taylor, 2007). Humans have inner drives that allow us to make
meaning by negotiating and critically assimilating what is around us (Mezirow,
2000). This can be hard to achieve in traditional, hierarchical classrooms.
2Journal of Transformative Education XX(X)
The Link Between Communicative Rationality and Transformative Learning
While transformative learning conceptualizes reflection as achievable, the psycho-
analytic and psychocritical view of the theory that focuses on the inner self (Cranton,
2000) has been criticized for focusing on the individual (Collard & Law, 1989) and
rational dimensions of thought, rather than looking at the socio-emotional aspects of
reflection (Malkki, 2010). This perspective falls short on providing prerequisites
required to engender such reflection. Mezirow (1991, 2003) addresses these short-
comings by asserting that transformative learning is built around discourse and
thrives in conditions where communicative rationality perpetuates. The social eman-
cipatory and psychodevelopmental perspectives of the theory (Kegan, 1994), rooted
in gaining incremental knowledge through social processes further cement Mezir-
ow’s acceptance of discourse. The initial theory of ten stages was expanded to
include an 11th stage of forging new relationships towards transforming perspec-
tives (Mezirow, 1991). The links between Mezirow and Habermas highlight how
deliberative, Deweyan processes emerge within such environments (Fleming, 2018).
While Marx and Gramsci focused on political civil society, Habermas decoded its
cross-disciplinary role in the public sphere. Coffee houses, salons, and educational
settings where people discuss matters of mutual concern are ecologies of commu-
nicative rationality for Habermas. He asserts that social processes transform public
opinions incrementally (Fleming, 2018). This has been recognized in Mezirow’s
(1991, 2000, 2003) newer conceptions of transformative learning, that assert the link
between communicative rationality, our affect (Kokkos, 2017; Mezirow, 2000), the
transformation of perspectives and knowledge, and the creation of new meaning.
Cohen and Arato (1992) assert that perspective transformation occurs in public
spheres across varied domains. Transformative learning is the deliberative apprecia-
tion of the diversity of the many facets of transformation of thinking that the human
condition has undergone across domains (Lange, 2015). The capacity for non-
hierarchical interactions and the serendipity of creating new understanding is facili-
tated through social processes and creating ideal speech situations (Habermas,
1970). Transformative learning transforms frames of reference arising from both
conflict and agreement (Mezirow, 2003). Thus, even conflictual presence (Xie et al.,
2017) can provide value to ideological exchanges that occur within Habermas’
(1989) lifeworld.
The Lifeworld as an Ecology of Change
The lifeworld is the background for communicative rationality (Habermas, 1989). It
comprises an “incalculable web of presuppositions” that accumulate owing to soci-
etal development. Every classroom contains its own lifeworld (Davis & Ziegler,
2000). Free will to participate in learning and detachment whilst understanding
diverse perspectives culminate into transformative learning and run parallel to
democracy in education. We suggest in this article that classes using online
Tilak et al. 3
platforms such as Multi-User Virtual Environments (MUVEs) and blogs can help
create learning communities that mirror ideologies of a lifeworld in cyberspace.
1
Our main purpose is to investigate to what extent computer-mediated technologies
(virtual environments, blogging platforms) promote reflective, balanced civil dis-
course in classrooms. Such experiences can turn learners into detached social acti-
vists who critique concepts towards positive social change (Mezirow, 1995, 2003).
Bringing Mezirow and Habermas together lower levels of reflectivity in Mezir-
ow’s theory and Habermas’s instrumental rationality seems to align. Instrumental
rationality (Habermas, 1984) involves adopting radical means to an end that lie
beyond democracy to achieve a goal for personal gain. Achieving transformative
learning is situated in the forging of relationships (Kitchenham, 2008). Mezirow
(2003) himself recognizes the validity of Habermas’ theory, differentiating instru-
mental and communicative rationality. He posits that thoughtful action and com-
munication is associated with learning rather than introspection (Mezirow, 1991),
which does not involve using the affect to create new meaning (Kitchenham, 2008).
In this article, we build on the thesis that one of the best ways to view how new
cyberspace applications lead to “transformation” is through a Mezirow type lens
(Glassman, 2019b). Too often, transformation when used in relation to the internet is
used to describe material changes in how we educate, for example, MOOCs (Glass-
man, 2019a). It is more important to understand the internet and cyberspace as
transforming our thinking (Glassman & Kang, 2016). We also see the internet as
the next step in the evolution of Mezirow’s ideas, creating new types of platforms
and opportunities that expand the educational context towards a transformative
educational process.
MUVEs and the Creation of Transformative Educational Communities
One reason for the difficulty to transition from traditional hierarchical structures to a
participatory system may lie in the mediating tools used in the classroom. Vygotsky
posits that mediating tools link individuals and knowledge from the external envi-
ronment. In direct-instruction classrooms, language is the mediating tool that facil-
itates internalization of knowledge (Penuel & Wertsch, 2010). Content-heavy
instructional methods deem the teacher an expert who imparts knowledge. Altering
the mediating tools could potentially encourage higher critical reflection. Allowing
freedom for reflection through such alteration could enable civil discourse within the
“lifeworld” of the classroom. When this principle is taken to an online community,
this notion can be simulated within the limitless bounds of cyberspace.
MUVEs as mediating tools could prove useful in facilitating this type of trans-
formative learning. Dissolving boundaries between digital and physical space can
create communities that encourage reflective civil interaction. Such tools can foster
reflectivity within the virtual setting that mirror social change (Glassman & Kang,
2016). Three-dimensional environments offer a great potential for such commu-
nities, with avatars (embodied virtual projections of users) being able to simulate
4Journal of Transformative Education XX(X)
real-world, place-based ideological exchange and provide opportunities for imme-
diate feedback through typed input, and pre-programmed non-verbal cues (Salmon,
2009).
Bainbridge (2007) observed that MUVEs like Second Life pose few barriers for
integrating individuals into the community. There are also compelling arguments
pointing towards the capacity of MUVEs to adapt to learner needs and create
challenging tasks in context (Mascitti et al., 2012). In MUVEs, learners can create
objects (Nie et al., 2009) that can be manipulated in ways inconceivable to phys-
ical reality (Edirisingha et al., 2009). Such objects can become focal points for
productive discussion and the formation of an online learning community
(Salmon, 2009). The learner engages with the digital (MUVE) and physical (class-
room) through the creation of an avatar that mirrors one’s identity and self-
perceptions (Kuznetcova et al., 2018; Theodore, 2009) and allows engagement
in a democratic “sandbox” fostering free ideological exchange. By adopting a
problem-based approach, MUVEs can allow students to work together with shared
purpose and learn by doing and engaging in civil discourse in the virtual world
(Kluge & Riley, 2008). The ability for immediate interaction towards solving a
common problem is what MUVEs allow for a social distribution of cognition and
collaborative processes (Dieterle & Clarke, 2009; Kuznetcova et al., 2019; Tu
¨zu
¨n
et al., 2019). With MUVEs, initial familiarity with the platform is necessary
towards facilitating democratic processes, and efforts must be made towards
developing this knowhow (Papachristos et al., 2014), familiarizing peers with the
system, and one another. Blogs are a second online ecology that can foster creation
of a learning community. Research has shown blogging communities can foster
communal understanding among students by encouraging an exchange of knowl-
edge (Kim & Glassman, 2013; Kreijns et al., 2013; Preece, 2000; Rovai, 2002).
This framework, much like MUVE environments, depends on the way such plat-
forms are designed and used in the classroom to foster discussion (Bartholomew
et al., 2012).
Functional digital environments can encourage critical reflection, by allowing
the balanced ideological exchange that could be accompanied by the creation of
online identities and 3D projections capable of immediate interaction. In these
environments, new spaces for non-hierarchical learning and the capacity to
exchange and create new knowledge is made possible (Dogan et al., 2018). In
order to maintain the stability of such ecologies, perspective transformation needs
to take place within the confines of civil discourse (Fleming, 2000). Democracy
calls for willing participation and expression of ideas, to gradually result in per-
spective transformation. Communicative action forms the basis of such change,
and democratic debates within the lifeworld, or in this case, the virtual world, need
to be shared to promote it (Habermas, 1984). Habermas emphasizes the importance
of democratic exchange and active engagement by the learning community
towards the creation of transformed, evolved social perspectives (Fleming,
2009). Such exchange is made richer through capacity for instantaneous feedback
Tilak et al. 5
and can lead to perspective transformation through engagement with limitless
possibilities, (Kuznetcova et al., 2019).
This is where the boundaries between blogs and MUVEs start to show. Written
reflection without capacity for immediate interaction could impede transformative
learning trajectories. This arises from the uncertainty for the incidence of immediate
salient feedback, since a blog allows chronological posting rather than multichannel
communication. A hybrid framework could allow an eloquent narration of perspec-
tive and democratic discourse.
Research Questions
We propose that online learning communities involving the use of hybrid methods
might lead to higher reflectivity within the classroom, by encouraging communica-
tive processes. Through alteration of mediating tools towards using MUVEs and
online blogs, this study aims to examine whether MUVEs can promote transforma-
tive learning. Our research questions are as follows:
Research Question 1
Does participation in an MUVE as part of an educational process increase the like-
lihood of critical approaches to information?
Research Question 2
Does participation in an MUVE as part of an educational process lead to more
transformative thinking?
Method
The current study was implemented in two sections of an undergraduate classroom
at a large Midwestern university that was administered to pre-service teachers. One
section was the experimental class, which integrated an MUVE platform into the
curriculum, but also involved blogging for weekly assignments, and direct instruc-
tion. The control classroom involved only blogging and top-down instruction. Data
were collected from the weekly blogging assignments from both sections. A cod-
ing scheme was developed on the basis of Mezirow (1991, 1995, 2003) and
Habermas’ (1970, 1984, 1989) theories and used to qualitatively label the blogs
for different levels of reflectivity. Interrater reliability was carried out in order to
ascertain the validity of the coding process. Following this, individual students
were mapped over three time points for growth in reflectivity using linear growth
curve modeling.
6Journal of Transformative Education XX(X)
Participants
Fifty-six pre-service undergraduate students (28 in the experimental group, 28 in the
control group) participated in the study. The median age in both conditions was 20
years, with the range falling between 18 and 34 years (M¼21.38, SD ¼3.37). Other
demographic variables, including reported internet use and gaming experience, are
presented below.
Curriculum
The active control class used a curriculum based on Open Source Educational
Processes frameworks (Glassman et al., 2011; Glassman & Kang, 2016). The same
curriculum was used by the instructor in this particular class over the last 5 academic
years. Open Source Educational Processes (OSEP) focus on the efficacy of learners
in using the internet to spur discussion and share information. One tool regularly
used in OSEP classrooms to facilitate discussion and sharing of information is
weekly blogging. This framework was used in the control classroom, along with
top-down instruction.
In the MUVE conditions, the aim was to create an alternative lifeworld, as
Habermas would call it, in order to discursively reify knowledge and create ideal
speech situations to facilitate such creation of perspectives. The MUVE acted as
this alternative lifeworld and was incorporated into the aforementioned control
classroom framework for the experimental group. Strategies were devised to link
MUVE activity to lectures, reading and blog-posting. The lectures in the MUVE
class were compressed to make room for virtual activities. In the control condition,
this was replaced by longer lectures and physically situated discussions. The
remaining time in both classes was used to expose students to other media like
audio and video.
In the MUVE condition, learners collectively built artefacts, learnt how to use
textures within the platform, and collectively engaged in tasks. They even designed
and built flipped classrooms as part of one of the assignments. Since the class was
related to adolescent identity development, some activities involved collectively
simulating activities typical of adolescents, such as going on a date, going camping,
to a dance party, or learning about a new culture by traveling within the virtual
world. Students collectively solved problems and gained insights, which were then
asynchronously expressed on the blog, after pondering over them through the lens of
in-class instruction. MUVE classrooms thus involved a combination of blogging,
physical top-down instruction, and virtual exploration in Second Life. In effect, the
MUVE acted as a mid-step or alternative lifeworld between the physical classroom
and the blogging activity. It allowed students to explore a space that can show the
potential for communicative rationality and immediate feedback, reflect on their
experiences, and reify this knowledge in a transformative/ critically reflective man-
ner as a narrative.
Tilak et al. 7
The control group only featured activities conducted in the physical classroom
and blogging activities. This allowed for asynchronous interactions on the blog and
immediate interactions within the classroom, but these were largely within a top-
down framework, with instructors considered as authoritative figures. MUVEs
allowed students to assume autonomy and interact non-hierarchically with one
another, as well as the instructors. We hypothesize that this allowed them to dis-
cursively create knowledge, challenge the status quo, and transform their perspec-
tives, all of which found expression on the blogging platform.
Students in both experimental and active control groups were required to attend
every class and write weekly blog posts. There were no other assignments, and
attendance and blog posts were graded only based on completion. A curriculum
team and research team were formed to discuss weekly MUVE activities. Discus-
sions regarding the MUVE curriculum often revolved around creation of democratic
learning environments, moderating levels of authority of instructors and Teaching
Assistants (TAs), and understanding why students showed signs of radical thinking
in some sessions (Glassman et al., in press).
Applications/Platforms
Both conditions used Blogger for blogging assignments. Students were required to
make one weekly post, comment at least once on another peer’s writing, and add
useful links to information to their posts. An aspect that made Blogger the ideal
choice was the capacity to display posts in reverse chronology, which adds organi-
zation to the development of a communicative blogging community (Bartholomew
et al., 2012; Kim & Glassman, 2013).
In the experimental setting, Second Life was chosen as the MUVE platform. The
research team discussed other MUVEs such as Active Worlds, Opensimulator and
Minecraft had for this class and determined Second Life as “best of breed.” A
consensus was reached to stay away from MPORG (Multiplayer Online Role-
Playing Game) platforms due to difficulties associated with tying in-game content
to classroom activities due to rigid plotlines that these platforms often have, making
deliberative outcomes elusive.
Purchasing a virtual land, the team developed an island called “Wisdom Shores,”
walled off from visitors. Students were free to travel and explore. The learning curve
was extremely steep, and the intuitiveness and graphic quality was often considered
to fall behind contemporary benchmarks. Learners, owing to individual difference,
reacted to these aspects differently, ranging from calling the platform redundant to
engaging with possibilities associated with it.
Coding Scheme
To label blogs for reflectivity, a coding scheme was developed using Kember et al.’s
(2008) four-part framework, and adapting it using Habermas’s theory of
8Journal of Transformative Education XX(X)
communicative action. Kember et al. (2008) relied on Jack Mezirow’s transforma-
tive learning (Mezirow, 1995) to create a four-part coding scheme. We adapted the
coding scheme to include more nuanced considerations of communicative ration-
ality, based on the updates made to the theory of transformative learning that we
have discussed in the previous sections of this article. The communicative under-
tones of Mezirow’s framework (Fleming, 2000) highlight the link between critical
reflectivity and communicative rationality. In Kember et al.’s (2008) article, a four-
part scheme was developed, consisting of four labels: (1) non-reflection, (2) under-
standing, (3) reflection and (4) critical reflection.
In our scheme, we adapt Kember’s original framework to involve the commu-
nicative or transformative possibilities in integrating the MUVE into a curriculum
(Weber, 1990). The purpose of using the coding scheme was to facilitate a granular
qualitative analysis on the narratives produced on the blogging platform and provide
context-specific evidence of growth in reflectivity towards transformative learning.
Keeping with Mezirow and Habermas, we chose to label understanding and critical
reflection as variables that could either be instrumental or communicative. The
difference between transformative understanding and critical reflection is similar
to the difference that Dewey (1933) highlights between less considered reflection/
reflection and critical reflection. The former would involve hasty decisions lacking
critique and would, in our coding scheme, be associated with less nuanced thinking,
but achieved from democratic processes.
Instrumental understanding and reflection are rooted in the individualistic
side of the educational lifeworld. They help explain basic understanding and
habitual action, which involves generating quick responses that are based on
reflections based on rigid value systems. The transformative variables in our
coding arise from social processes, but critical reflection is harder to achieve, as
it involves a sound critique of the concepts being discussed. The coding scheme
is presented below.
Instrumental Understanding
This level represents an empirical understanding of a topic. Rather than critiquing a
concept thoroughly, students showing instrumental understanding will merely repro-
duce data that they read or come across to present factual matter. In other words,
they accept the perspectives that authoritative figures put forward as absolute.
Instrumental Critical Reflection
Habermas proposed two ways to create discourse. One of them is breaking down
existing conceptions completely through a sort of rebellion. This is represented by
instrumental critical reflection, in our scheme. Learners showing this level would
thoroughly criticize a concept rather than providing a deeper critique and would call
for a complete change rather than proposing action plans for incremental change.
Tilak et al. 9
They would comment on concepts after generating reflections from rigid value
systems rather than critiquing them. Although this notion of complete change may
align with social good, the mode that it adopts to incite it may create turmoil within
the learning environment.
Transformative Understanding
Transformative understanding is associated with a surface level understanding of
why the system or concept being studied needs to be changed. However, one aspect
lacking in this level is a thorough critique of the existing system. Individuals show-
ing this level of reflectivity will call for incremental change for social good without
reflecting over the implications it has. Therefore, while this lies within civil dis-
course, learners showing this level of reflectivity do not pose a rationale that powers
their intention to create change.
Transformative Critical Reflection
Mezirow believes that transformative learning is indicative of the transformation of
social perspectives through the convergence of diverse opinions (Kember et al.,
2008; Mezirow, 2003). When we integrate Habermas’ communicative rationality
to adapt the original coding scheme, one can see how civil discourse can be created
through ideologically balanced debate. In our coding scheme, transformative critical
reflection indicates thorough critique of a system using multiple positions, and calls
for gradual change, formulated through civil discourse. We believe that the MUVE
is a space that can encourage such reflectivity, by forming the middle-step or
“alternative lifeworld” that allows the synchronous reification of knowledge
between peers and instructors, from top-down instruction, into transformed, asyn-
chronously created perspectives on the blogging platform.
Blogs were taken from three time points (Week 1, Week 7, and Week 13) for each
group, to measure the growth that students showed in each condition for the vari-
ables outlined.
Coding Scheme: Applied
Below is a comprehensive qualitative analysis of blogs. One blog exhibiting each
level of reflectivity has been explained to provide a deeper understanding of para-
meters that guide our coding scheme.
Instrumental Understanding
I think it is interesting when people say they would go back and change things that
have happened in their lives (school, work, relationships, etc.). I’d rather not go back
and change anything that has happened in the past. Whether it be big or small
mistakes, there is always something to learn from it if you choose to do so. Things
10 Journal of Transformative Education XX(X)
that I regret doing or not doing in the past I would rather look at as opportunities to
learn, not to dwell and feel bad about. There is no escaping the initial, “I messed up”
feeling though. That is normal and should come in the process. But we come to this
point when we have a decision of continuing to dwell or moving forward. Here is a
TedTalk I found about learning from your mistakes https://www.ted.com/talks/
diana_laufenberg_3_ways_to_teach
In Week 13 of the control classroom, students wrote blogs about the mistakes
they make and the risks that they take during adolescence. In this post, the student
elaborates upon the nature of life, and how one learns from mistakes. Rather than
providing a critique by arguing about things like repentance, as opposed to forgetting
and moving on, the student merely says that both these things are a part of life,
without providing action plans to help negotiate such experiences, or considering the
anecdotes of others. Thus, this blog was coded as instrumental understanding.
Instrumental Critical Reflection
I was extremely interested in the movie we watched the past week. I hope we can
watch the end of it this week. The movie however made me upset. The thing of it is
that cyberbullying like what took place in this movie happens all the time. Kids pick
on kids just for their own enjoyment. I hate it. I don’t get how someone can get
enjoyment by making fun of someone, and hurting them. When I was in high school,
we had something similar to this happen. Fortunately, nothing too serious happened
because a teacher became aware of the situation. It really hurts me to see stuff like
this happen. It’s terrible that things like this are happening more and more now that
social media is so frequently used. Here is a link about cyberbullying: https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v¼vmQ8nM7b6XQ
In Week 7 of the control class, students were asked to blog about technology in
educational settings. In this post, the student talks of how technology and social
media has negatively impacted social interactions in school settings. Rather than
posing a balanced argument, the student merely says that technology is unfavorable
to adolescent identity development, calling for radical change. Thus, this blog was
coded as exhibiting instrumental critical reflection.
Transformative Understanding
I think as teachers; it’s our responsibility is to introduce our students to methods on
how to learn in inside and outside of the classroom. I think that it is beneficial to
incorporate technology into our lessons to students, since technology is so valuable
and prominent in society today. As a teacher, I want to incorporate technology into
my classroom in a way that promotes learning, while making it clear to my students
that technology is not to be used in any way as a distraction. To me, it’s crucial that
my students need to understand how to navigate the internet, in order to find answers
to their questions from credible and reliable sources. Also, I think it’s important to
Tilak et al. 11
expose students to the various resources that are available to help them learn on the
internet, such as YouTube and Khan Academy. I believe that it is more important for
teachers to show their student how to be success learners in all aspects of live, with
or without technology, rather than for them to just spoon feed their students by
transferring the class’s information to them. I attached an article that discusses the
importance of technology in the classroom (http://www.securedgenetworks.com/
blog/10-Reasons-Today-s-Students-NEED-Technology-in-the-Classroom).
In this blog, the student talks about how there needs to be a balance between using
technology and gaining applied knowledge and thus acknowledges the need for
change. However, no balanced critique of the advantages and impediments of tech-
nology is present. Thus, the blog was coded as showing transformative
understanding.
Transformative Critical Reflection
I do not think that there is anything necessarily wrong with students dating in high
school. I think students who do date in school miss out on certain things because they
are caught up in a relationship. With that being said, I think it is completely natural
for people to want to have a significant other at that age, and I also think that it is
their right to have a relationship if they want one. I was involved in a relationship
when I was in high school, and sometimes I look back on it and wish that I did more
things with a lot of the other people in my class other than that one person. I also
think that good things can come from dating in school. Also, dating in high school is
such a significant part of the American culture at this point it would be incredibly
hard to stop children from having romantic relationships at that age. Just look at how
many important generational movies are based on romance in high school in the
attached link (http://www.ranker.com/list/best-teen-romance-movies/ranker-film).
In Week 13 of the experimental class, students were asked to comment on dating
in high school as a part of identity development. In this blog, the student says that a
relationship can be enjoyable but may prevent engagement in several other aspects
of one’s personal life. By claiming that dating is a seminal part of American culture
that needs to be morphed incrementally to allow more balanced experiences in one’s
personal life, the student thus engages in transformative critical reflection.
Results
Blogs were coded according to the aforementioned coding scheme, after develop-
ing familiarity with the variables under consideration. The highest level of reflec-
tion seen was ascribed to each post and mapped over time. Two raters coded 30 of
the set of 152 blogs to conduct reliability tests for the coding scheme. Cohen’s k
was calculated for the process. After interrater reliability, the level of agreement
was seen to be moderate to substantial (k¼.66, 95%CI [.45, .88]). When the
whole data set was coded after this process, major disagreements were resolved
12 Journal of Transformative Education XX(X)
through collective negotiation to reach a consensus about contested codes. After
codesfortheentiredatasetwereobtained, linear growth curve modeling was
conducted to gauge whether greater growth in reflectivity towards transformative
critical reflection was seen in the MUVE condition, as compared to the active
control.
Descriptives
Descriptive statistics for 152 blog entries (67 entries in the control group and 85
in the experimental group across three time points) were carried out, and are
shown in Table 3. Across all three time points, 46%of students demonstrated
instrumental understanding, 26%demonstrated instrumental critical reflection,
14%transformative understanding, and 14%showed transformative critical
reflection.
The data were further divided into experimental and control conditions. The
active control group exhibited 52%instrumental understanding, 19%instrumental
critical reflection, 21%transformative understanding, and 8%transformative critical
reflection over all three time points. The experimental condition exhibited different
proportions, viz. 39%instrumental understanding, 34%instrumental critical
Table 1. Distribution of Gender.
Condition Male % Female % Total
Experimental 11 39.30 17 60.70 28
Control 15 53.60 13 46.40 28
Total 26 46.40 30 53.60 56
Table 2. Descriptives of Age.
Age Descriptive
Median 20
Mean 21.38
SD 3.37
Table 3. Student Academic Status.
Academic Status Frequency %
Undergraduate Student 49 87.50
Graduate Student 7 12.50
Tilak et al. 13
reflection, 6%transformative understanding, and 21%transformative critical reflec-
tion (Table 7).
To explore growth patterns, we initially plotted percentages at each time
point (Figures 1–4). The experimental group showed a growing trend in
Table 4. Reported Daily Internet Usage.
Daily Internet Use n%
1–3 hr 21 37.50
3–5 hr 19 33.90
more than 5 hr 16 28.60
Table 5. Reported Gaming Experience.
Gaming Experience Experimental % Control %
A lot 9 32.1 10 35.7
Some 6 21.4 6 21.4
Little 8 28.6 8 28.6
None 5 17.9 4 14.3
Table 6. Coding Scheme.
Code Explanation
Instrumental
understanding
Basic retrieval of concepts. Lacks solid critique.
Instrumental reflection Proposes radical change. Often involves a harsh criticism of existing
concepts.
Transformative
understanding
Characterized by desire for steady, incremental change, but lacks
thorough critique of existing systems.
Transformative critical
reflection
Provides sound critique of existing systems and proposes action
plans for incremental social change.
Table 7. Counts and Percentages Across All Three Time Points.
Condition
Instrumental
Understanding
Instrumental Crit-
ical Reflection
Transformative
Understanding
Transformative
Critical Reflection
Control 44 (52%) 16 (19%) 18 (21%) 7 (8%)
Experimental 26 (39%) 23 (34%) 4 (6%) 14 (21%)
Total 70 (46%) 39 (26%) 22 (14%) 21 (14%)
14 Journal of Transformative Education XX(X)
transformative critical reflection, whereas the control group appeared to remain
the same. Conversely, for instrumental critical reflection, the experimental group
showed similar proportions over time, whereas the control group increased
drastically.
Table 8. Contingency Table of Reflectivity Across Time.
Time Point
Instrumental
Understanding
Instrumental
Critical Reflection
Transformative
Understanding
Transformative
Critical Reflection
Time 1 22 (84.6%)
C
11 (50%)
E
0 (0%)
C
8 (36%)
E
2 (8%)
C
2 (9%)
E
2 (8%)
C
1 (5%)
E
Time 2 11 (37%)
C
11 (61%)
E
4 (13%)
C
5 (28%)
E
12 (40%)
C
1 (6%)
E
3 (10%)
C
1 (5.6%)
E
Time 3 11 (38%)
C
4 (15%)
E
12 (41%)
C
10 (37%)
E
4 (14%)
C
1 (4%)
E
2 (7%)
C
12 (44%)
E
Note.
C
¼control group,
E
¼experimental group.
Table 9. Significance Levels for Growth in Instrumental Understanding.
Variable Coefficient SE T
Fixed effect
Intercept 1.11* .42 2.60
Condition 0.74 .61 1.21
Time 0.99** .32 3.10
Time Condition 0.17 .46 0.37
Random effect
Intercept 0.79
Slope (time) 0.51
*p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001.
Table 10. Significance Levels for Growth in Instrumental Critical Reflection.
Variable Coefficient SE T
Fixed effect
Intercept 4.07*** 0.99 4.10
Condition 3.36** 1.11 3.02
Time 1.89** 0.56 3.35
Time Condition 1.84** 0.65 2.82
Random effect
Intercept 1.40
Slope (time) 0.25
*p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001.
Tilak et al. 15
Linear Growth Curve Models
Linear growth curve modeling was carried out to measure average growth for the
four variables. Differential effects of treatment group were observed over time on
these variables. We employed a Linear Growth Model due to the small quantity of
time points available. At Level 1, we include a systematic growth trajectory term
(time). At Level 2, we included one person-level characteristic (condition). We
allowed the intercept and growth rate parameters to vary between individual stu-
dents at Level 2. As all variables were dichotomously coded, growth models were
estimated using logistic growth curve models. Results are presented in terms of
logits.
Model equations
Level 1 model : Zti ¼p0iþp1iTIMEti
ðÞ
Level 2 model : p0i¼b00 þb01 EXPERIMEi
ðÞþr0i
Table 11. Significance Levels for Growth in Transformative Understanding.
Variable Coefficient SE T
Fixed effect
Intercept 1.47** .46 3.56
Condition 0.82 .85 0.99
Time 0.14 .33 0.56
Time Condition 0.63 .71 0.90
Random effect
Intercept 0.37
Slope (time) 0.008
*p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001.
Table 12. Significance Levels for Growth in Transformative Critical Reflection.
Variable Coefficient SE T
Fixed effect
Intercept 2.39*** 0.57 4.16
Condition 1.48 1.36 1.09
Time 0.04 0.47 0.08
Time Condition 1.83* 0.87 2.09
Random effect
Intercept 1.35
Slope (time) 0.90
*p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001.
16 Journal of Transformative Education XX(X)
Figure 1. Percentages of instrumental understanding across three time points.
Figure 2. Percentages of instrumental critical reflection across three time points.
Tilak et al. 17
Figure 3. Percentages of transformative understanding across three time points.
Figure 4. Percentages of transformative critical reflection across three time points.
18 Journal of Transformative Education XX(X)
p1i¼b10þb11 ðEXPERIMEiÞþr1i
Mixed model : Zti ¼b00þb01 EXPERIMEiþb10 TIMEti þb11
EXPERIMEiTIMEtiþr0iþr1iTIMEti
Instrumental understanding. The interaction between experimental group and time was
not significant (B¼0.17, SE ¼.46, p¼.71). The likelihood of exhibiting instrumental
understanding in the blog posts decreased, on average, at a rate of 0.17 logits lower for
the experimental group than their control group counterparts, but this was not statis-
tically significant (Figure 5). Looking at the variance–covariance matrix, intercept
variance and slope variance were not significantly different across individuals.
Instrumental critical reflection. Treatment group was significantly related to individual
growth rates (B¼1.84, SE ¼.65, p< .01). The likelihood of exhibiting instru-
mental critical reflections in the blog posts increased at a rate of 1.84 logits lower for
the experimental group than their control group counterparts (Figure 6). Observing
variance/covariance components, we observed that intercept variance and slope
variance were not significantly different across individuals.
Transformative understanding. The interaction between experimental group and time
was not significant (B¼0.63, SE ¼.71, p¼.37). The likelihood of exhibiting
Figure 5. Linear growth curve for instrumental understanding.
Tilak et al. 19
Figure 6. Linear growth curve for instrumental critical reflection.
Figure 7. Linear growth curve for transformative understanding.
20 Journal of Transformative Education XX(X)
transformative understanding decreased, on average, at a rate of 0.63 logits lower for
the experimental group than their control group counterparts, but this was not sta-
tistically significant (Figure 7). Looking at the variance–covariance matrix, intercept
variance and slope variance were not significantly different across individuals.
Transformative critical reflection. There was a significant difference in the growth rates
between the treatment group and control group on transformative critical reflection
(B¼1.83, SE ¼.80, p< .05). The likelihood of exhibiting transformative critical
reflection in the blog posts increased, on average, at a rate of 1.83 logits higher for
the experimental group than their control group counterparts (Figure 8). There was
no significant variance in the intercept or slope components.
Discussion
The two sections of the class considered for the current study comprise the second
round of classes using the same hybrid framework. In the first round (Glassman
et al., in press), epistemic identity development was seen to be extremely individua-
listic, and this was characterized by micro-rebellions among students. This led to
considerations among the TAs and instructors about the levels of autonomy that
students were to have in class. The activities outlined for the MUVE classroom
(building and exploration) were designed to encourage more communication within
the virtual environment for the students participating in the current study. We think
Figure 8. Linear growth curve for transformative critical reflection.
Tilak et al. 21
that this allowed more transformative reflection in the written blogging assignments.
Upon qualitative analysis of blog posts, it was seen that students in the experimental
setting had a higher tendency to critique systems rather than labeling them as
absolute or in need of radical change.
Although there were higher incidences of transformative learning trajectories in
the MUVE setting, some fascinating anomalies were observed, which can be
regarded as micro-rebellions. These micro-rebellions (Glassman et al., in press) are
more pronounced indicators of conflictual presence within the classroom. For
Mezirow (2003), these would also lead to transformative learning when resolved
towards a common goal, communicatively. We chose to streamline these issues in
the fall round, in order to fit within the constraints of available time within the
academic year. In Week 9, students were asked to assume the roles of instructors
and construct virtual classrooms. This enabled them to flip the notion of “authority”
and create a democratic learning environment. Students were elated to assume
positions of authority, and this helped them understand how overcoming their reti-
cence could heighten quality of discourse within the classroom. Although higher
levels of transformative reflection were seen in the experimental condition, when
instructors critiqued student output, some were less than pleased, and exhibited
“uncivil discourse,” which also spilled over into subsequent weeks. Thus, it was
seen that some students exhibited instrumental critical reflection as a response
mechanism; however, the incidences were far less pronounced than in our previous
work (Glassman et al., in press). While the MUVE provided the scope for critical
and transformative learning trajectories, as posed by our research questions, there
were some instances of radical thinking. This can be attributed to the learnt habits
that students developed through their experiences in hierarchical learning
environments.
While Blogger facilitated an online community, it produced less pronounced
increases in reflectivity in isolation, without being supplemented by the MUVE.
This can be attributed to the uncertainty for immediate feedback on the blog. In the
MUVE condition, the projections Second Life were capable of such immediate
feedback and enabled the creation of live democratic debates as MUVE activities
ensued, allowing for the transformation of social perspectives through civil dis-
course (Mezirow, 2003). As a result of the absence of such capability in the control
group, students often proposed that systems and concepts that they did not agree with
need to be dissolved to give birth to a new order (instrumental critical reflection), or
simply claimed to agree with them, or accept them as absolute (instrumental
understanding).
Higher levels of instrumental reflection can thus be observed in such settings, as
the blog posts in the control setting are not created as part of a democratic social
process that allows immediate ideological exchange. The role of situational interest
in the possibilities that MUVEs have to offer could also play a mediating role
(Arnone et al., 2011), in predicting the higher levels of engagement and civil dis-
course manifested in the experimental setting. On the whole, it can be inferred from
22 Journal of Transformative Education XX(X)
students within the MUVE that there is a possibility to engender higher reflectivity
through the use of such tools.
Limitations
While MUVEs can create civil discourse within learning environments, their use is
not immune to limitations. The emergence of technology coincides with the advent
of postmodernism in the late 1900s. Postmodernism is a period characterized by
evolutions in art, media, and technologies that dissolve boundaries between the
privileged and the middle class (Spanos, 1990). This leads to greater access and a
loosening of moral and ethical boundaries associated with technology and art, cul-
minating in greater freedom of speech, greater incidence of counterculture, and a
higher sense of individualism.
When we apply this to the present study, the emergence of micro-rebellions within
the MUVE is explained (Glassman et al., in press). These were mitigated (but not
eliminated) in the present study through careful curation of instructional methods.
Students desiring a tried, tested method and well laid out syllabi that are favored by
top-down instruction indicate the chance for micro-rebellions within the virtual envi-
ronment. This is a function of the cultural presuppositions associated with the top-
down nature of teaching and learning that theorists such as Freire & Faundez (1989)
and McLaren (2000) discuss. Parameters associated with the design of technological
tools can affect engagement that learners have with online learning communities
(Kreijns et al., 2013). Expanding upon our current framework using such literature
might help strengthen our findings. The use of an Internet Self-Efficacy Scale could
help understand whether higher levels of such self-efficacy (Kim & Glassman, 2013)
show stronger correlation with transformative learning in both conditions.
The last concern associated with the present study is the use of a fairly small
sample size. The qualitative analysis made use of a small data set to analyze the
blogs in a microscopic manner and derive insights based on our adapted coding
scheme. This gave us a fairly strong overview of the cause of difference in narratives
between the two conditions. The following quantitative analysis that maps student
growth is not an attempt to generalize our findings on a large scale, but provide an
accurate picture of the growth students showed in their transformative reflectivity in
the context we considered. The present study is meant to provide a micro-level,
context-specific view of the effect that MUVEs can have on learning environments.
Therefore, while a small sample size does call into question the generalizability of
the study, it’s purpose, geared towards context-specific content analysis of narra-
tives, warrants such a compact sample.
Conclusion
Computer-mediated technologies, when used carefully, can foster civil discourse
that Habermas (1970) labels as the facilitator of transformative learning. These
Tilak et al. 23
seamless discussions can turn the perceived unidirectional nature of instruction
inside out. It is in these alternative, digital lifeworlds that Habermas’s (1989) praxis
can be achieved, to encourage perspective transformation. While virtual environ-
ments can bring the risks associated with excess autonomy and open access to
knowledge, it is fascinating to study how careful moderation of civil discourse can
engender perspective transformation.
From our findings, we can see that participatory environments like MUVEs may
contribute towards perspective transformation through non-hierarchical processes.
This embodies Mezirow’s (1995) notion of transformative learning culminating in
meaningful relationships to effect action plans generated from deliberative reflec-
tion. The creation of participatory environments is only possible when both instruc-
tors and learners overcome their learnt perceptions about the nature of teaching and
learning. As Dewey (1916) says, humans advanced to be a dominant species owing
to their social adaptive capacity. When we are able to understand how lived experi-
ences and the interiorization of new experiences from the social world (Vygotsky,
1978) shape learning, transformative learning becomes a possibility in the educa-
tional lifeworld that we may no longer need to covet.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
ORCID iD
Michael Glassman https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3870-8760
Note
1. Cyberspace is short for cybernetic space. It is originally based on the theory of cybernetics
where all activity is based on continuous, evolving feedback loops. It was adopted by
cyberpunk writers and then electronic information in general to describe the possibilities of
electronic space (as opposed to material place) to create continuous feedback loops in ways
that are difficult, if they are even possible, in place-based interactions (Glassman, 2016).
References
Arnone, M., Small, R., Chauncey, S., & McKenna, H. (2011). Curiosity, interest and engage-
ment in technology-pervasive learning environments: A new research agenda. Educational
Technology Research and Development,59(2), 181–198. http://www.jstor.org/stable/
41414933
Bainbridge, W. S. (2007). The scientific research potential of virtual worlds. Science,317,472.
24 Journal of Transformative Education XX(X)
Bartholomew, M., Jones, T., & Glassman, M. (2012). A community of voices: Educational
blog management strategies and tools. TechTrends,56(4), 19–25.
Carter, T. J. (2002). The importance of talk to midcareer women’s development: A colla-
borative inquiry. The Journal of Business Communication,39, 55–91.
Cohen, J., & Arato, A. (1992). Civil society and political theory. MIT Press.
Collard, S., & Law, M. (1989). The limits of perspective transformation: A critique of
Mezirow’s theory. Adult Education Quarterly,39(2), 99–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0001848189039002004
Cranton, P. (2000). Individual differences and transformative learning. In J. Mezirow
&Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation (pp. 181–204). Jossey-Bass.
Davis, D. C., & Ziegler, M. F. (2000). Transformative learning at a large-system level: Using
a participative research process to help change the culture of a state’s welfare system. In C.
A. Wiessner, S. R. Meyer, & D. A. Fuller (Eds.), The third international transformative
learning conference: Challenges of practice: Transformative learning in action (pp.
1–10). Columbia University.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education.
Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process. D.C. Heath.
Dieterle, E., & Clarke, J. (2009). Multi-user virtual environments for teaching and learning. In
M. Pagani (Ed.), Encyclopedia of multimedia technology and networking (2nd ed.) (pp.
1033–1041). Idea Group.
Dog
˘an, D., C¸ ınar, M., & Tu
¨zu
¨n, H. (2018). Multi-user virtual environments for education. In
N. Lee (Ed.), Encyclopedia of computer graphics and games (pp. 1–7). Springer
International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08234-9_172-1
Edirisingha, P., Salmon, G., & Nie, M. (2009). 3-d multi-user virtual environments for
socialization in distance learning. In G. Roberts (Ed.), Users and innovation programme
project presentations (pp. 20–24). JISC. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publica
tions/altc2008presentations.pdf
Fleming, T. (2000). Habermas on civil society, lifeworld and system: Unearthing the social in
transformation theory. Teachers College Record Online, 1–10. http://mural.maynoothuni
versity.ie/1058/1/HabermasTFleming.pdf
Fleming, T. (2009). Condemnedto learn: University and the learning society. In M. Murphy & T.
Fleming (Eds.), Habermas, critical theory and education (pp. 111–125). Taylor & Francis.
Fleming, T. (2018). Critical theory and transformative learning: Rethinking the radical intent
of Mezirow’s theory. International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and
Technology,9(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJAVET.2018070101
Freire, P., & Faundez, A. (1989). Learning to question. Continuum.
Glassman, M. (2016). Educational psychology and the Internet. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781316155134
Glassman, M. (2019a). DeMOOCing society: Convivial tools to systems and back again in the
information age. Educational Philosophy and Theory,51(14), 1413–1422. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00131857.2018.1539827
Tilak et al. 25
Glassman, M. (2019b). The internet as a context for participatory action research. Education
and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10033-1
Glassman, M., Bartholomew, M., & Jones, T. (2011). Migrations of the mind: The emergence
of open source education. Educational Technology,51(4), 26–31. http://www.jstor.org/
stable/44429928
Glassman, M., & Kang, M. (2016). Teaching and learning through open source educative
processes. Teaching and Teacher Education,60, 281–290.
Glassman, M., Kuznetcova, I., Lin, T. J., Tilak, S., Wang, Q., Walling, A., & Wen, Z. (in
press). Spaces of rebellion: The use of multi-user virtual environments in the development
of learner epistemic identity. The Journal of Experimental Education.
Habermas, J. (1970). Towards a theory of communicative competence. Inquiry,13, 360–375.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00201747008601597
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of
society. Beacon.
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a
category of bourgeois society (Vol. 1). MIT Press.
Joldersma, C. W., & Crick, R. D. (2010). Citizenship, discourse ethics and an emancipatory.
Model of lifelong learning. In M. Murphy & T. Fleming (Eds.), Habermas, critical theory
and education (pp. 137–153). Routledge.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads. Harvard University Press.
Kember, D., McKay, J., Sinclair, K., & Yuet Wong, F. K. (2008). A four category coding scheme
for coding and assessing the level of reflection in written work. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education,33(4), 369–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701293355
Kim, Y., & Glassman, M. (2013). Creating an educational context for open source intelli-
gence: The development of internet self-efficacy through a blog centric course. Computers
& Education,69, 332–342.
Kitchenham, A. (2008). The evolution of Jack Mezirow’s transformative learning theory.
Journal of Transformative Education,6(2), 104–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/15413
44608322678
Kluge, S., & Riley, L. (2008). Teaching in virtual worlds: Opportunities and challenges.
Issues in Information Science and Information Technology,5, 127–135.
Kokkos, A. (2017). The contribution of aesthetic experience in transformative learning and
bildung. In A. Laros, T. Fhur, & E. W. Taylor (Eds.), Transformative learning meets
bildung: An international exchange (pp. 331–340). Sense Publishers.
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Vermeulen, M. (2013). Social aspects of CSCL environments:
A research framework. Educational Psychologist,48(4), 229–242.
Kuznetcova, I., Glassman, M., & Lin, T. J. (2019). Multi-user environments as a pathway to
distributed social networks in the classrooms. Computers & Education,130, 26–39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.11.004
Kuznetcova, I., Teeple, J., & Glassman, M. (2018). The dialectic of the avatar: Developing in-
world identities in second life. Journal of Gaming and Virtual Worlds,10(1), 59–71.
https://doi.org/10.1386/jgvw.10.1.59_1
26 Journal of Transformative Education XX(X)
Lange, E. A. (2015). The ecology of transformative learning: Transdisciplinary provocations.
Journal of Transformative Learning,3(1), 28–34. https://jotl.uco.edu/index.php/jotl/arti
cle/view/48/46
Ma¨ lkki, K. (2010). Building on Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning: Theorizing the
challenges to reflection. Journal of Transformative Education,8(1), 42–62. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1541344611403315
Mascitti, I., Fasciani, M., & Stefanelli, C. (2012). Virtual worlds in education: AVATAR, ST.
ART and Euroversity action-research initiatives. FormaMente, 1-2, 253 -265. https://for
mamente.guideassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012_1_2_Mascitti_et_al.pdf
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions in adult learning. Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1995). Transformation theory of adult learning. In M. Welton (Ed.), In defense of
the lifeworld (pp. 39–70). SUNY Press.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In
J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation (pp. 3–34). Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (2003). Transformative learning as discourse. Journal of Transformative
Education,1(1), 58–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344603252172
Nie, M., Edirisingha, P., & Wheeler, M. (2009, June 10–13). Second life for archaeol-
ogy, digital photography and media and communications education—three case stud-
ies [Conference presentation]. EDEN 2009 Conference Proceedings, Leicester,
England.
Papachristos, N. M., Vrellis, I., Natsis, A., & Mikropoulos, T. A. (2014). The role of envi-
ronment design in an educational Multi-User Virtual Environment. British Journal of
Educational Technology,45, 636–646. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12056
Penuel, W. R., & Wertsch, J. V. (2010). Vygotsky and identity formation: A sociocultural
approach. Educational Psychologist,30(2), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3
002_5
Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability and supporting sociability. John
Wiley.
Rovai, A. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. The International Review of
Research in Open and Distributed Learning,3(1), 1–16. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/
49515/
Salmon, G. (2009). The future for (second) life and learning. British Journal of Educational
Technology,40(3), 526–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00967.x
Spanos, W. (1990). What was postmodernism? Contemporary Literature,31(1), 108–115.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1208640
Taylor, E. W. (2007). An update of transformative learning theory: A critical review of the
empirical research (1999–2005). International Journal of Lifelong Education,26(2),
173–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370701219475
Taylor, E. W. (2008). Transformative learning theory. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education,119, 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.301
Tennant, M. C. (1991). The psychology of adult teaching and learning. In J. M. Peters & P.
Jarvis, & Associate (Eds.), Adult education: Evolution and achievements in a developing
field of study (pp. 191–216). Jossey-Bass.
Tilak et al. 27
Theodore, P. A. (2009). Real education in virtual space: Looking at a multi-user virtual
environment through a Deweyan lens. Journal of Philosophy & History of Education,
59, 118–121.
Tu
¨zu
¨n, H., Bilgic, H. G., & Elci, S. Y. (2019). The effects of 3D multi-user virtual environ-
ments on collaborative learning and social presence. International Electronic Journal of
Elementary Education,11(3), 221–231. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2019349247
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (Vol. 49). Sage.
Xie, K., Lu, L., Cheng, S. L., & Izmirli, S. (2017). The interactions between facilitator
identity, conflictual presence, and social presence in peer-moderated online collaborative
learning. Distance Education,38(2), 230–244.
Author Biographies
Shantanu Tilak is a PhD student in educational psychology at the Ohio State University. His
work revolves around integrating critical theory and cybernetics into the understanding of the
use of technology in education and using the tenets of educational psychology to test these
theoretical insights.
Michael Glassman is professor of educational psychology at the Ohio State University. His
work has centered around implementing a Deweyian (and by extension, a Vygotskian) model
of online and blended learning and looking at the participatory potential of the Internet
through the lens of theorists such as Ivan Illich.
Irina Kuznetcova is a graduate in Educational Psychology from the Ohio State University.
Her research lies at the crossroads of democratic, Deweyian approaches to education, and the
gamification of learning.
Joshua Peri is a student of Educational Statistics at the Ohio State University. His research
looks at the creation of simulated data, and the cause-effect inferences drawn from it.
Qiannan Wang is a former student of Educational Psychology, and a current student of
architecture at the Ohio State University. Her research looks at the creation of learning spaces
that increase engagement and critical thinking in classrooms.
Ziye Wen is a former student of Educational Psychology at the Ohio State University. Her
research has looked at social perspective taking in young children through qualitative
approaches.
Amanda Walling is a former student of Educational Psychology at the Ohio State University.
Amanda’s interests lie in looking optimal ways to manifest the creation of serious, generative
educational games.
28 Journal of Transformative Education XX(X)
