Archive for year 2008
Investigating the Learning Power of Second Life
Feb 16th
I’ve been considering in more depth the question I initially asked in my Happy Productive Returns from Second Life? post, “What are some ways in which the effort required [to use Second Life for a learning activity] and benefits received [by learners] could be measured?” A few, very rough thoughts follow on how that question may potentially be investigated.
Following the lead of Joop Van Schie’s work described at Aggiornamento II, I tracked down resources regarding Bernie Dodge’s PADE formula. Professor Dodge first discussed the formula at a CUE Conference in Spring 2007; Wes Fryer blogged about and podcasted that session at the Speed of Creativity. Furthemore, I did learn, from Professor Dodge via Twitter, that the PADE formula has not been “written up” or studied specifically.
The PADE formula suggests a learning power quotient may be achieved to measure the quality of learning games:
Learning Power = Attention * Depth * Efficiency
As Wes Fryer recorded in his notes of Dr. Dodge’s session, Attention is equal to the brain minutes spending attending to X divided by the total brain minutes spent. Depth is the degree to which thinking is required (shows traditional Bloom’s taxonomy), and efficiency is brain minutes devoted to curriculum divided by total brain minutes.
I’m currently considering two general approaches to measure the learning power of Second Life: one qualitative and one quantitative in nature.
First, one option would be to extend upon the work Joop has done by focusing on educators that have conducted learning activities in Second Life. Working with those that have already taught in Second Life, data could be collected regarding: learning objectives, learning activities, perceived benefits, achieved outcomes, development time required for resources, artifacts produced by learners, and estimated time commitment required of learners. A multiple case study method could be used in combination with coding of collected data in a manner to facilitate the evaluation of Second Life in each case per Attention * Depth * Efficiency.
Second, conduct a learning activity via Second Life in collaboration with a faculty member at my institution. Using a more in depth, single case study, information similar to that described above could be collected via semi-structured interviews with study participants. Plus, learner activity (efficiency and attention) potentially could be measured using a scripted activity logging tool developed for the study which they could use while engaging course content. Finally, WeGame.com or comparable screencasting tool could be used to record learner activity to be coded by researchers to determine the depth of learning taking place.
Finally, while media comparison studies have less perceived value than they did in the past, a comparison of Second Life to other delivery methods in light of the PADE formula may arguably yield the “net power” of Second Life for delivery of certain instructional activities.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...IT: Friend or Foe?
Feb 15th
This evening (Friday, Feb 15), I attended a Community Colleges in Second Life group meeting at the CCSL Resource Center on EduIsland 4. The title of the meeting was “IT: Friend or Foe?” A few reflections . . .
I continue to meet outstanding educators with incredible perspectives, insight, work ethic and desire to help learners achieve maximum potential. Many of them are working in difficult situations and helping learners with significant challenges, financial and otherwise.
Some institutions may have “all the bandwidth” they need while others don’t have a sufficient “pipe” to support regular use of YouTube on campus. That obstacle does curtail the opportunity to use Second Life for educational purposes, but more than a few continue to trudge forward individually, on their own time, trusting their institution will eventually catch up and eventually leverage the knowledge and skills they’ve learned in Second Life.
Many institutions have engaged Second Life by making a significant investment (an island etc) and then working to ensure that faculty have the opportunity, interest and necessary support to involve students live learning activities. Of course, not all institutions have the finances or IT capabilities to begin in that manner. A second approach – and the tact I’m currently taking – is to define a very small scale project with specific goals to evaluate the instructional use of Second Life and to work with IT to support the smaller project. This alleviates the magnitude of concern IT may have regarding issues typically created by Second Life: security, update requirements, bandwidth, user support. As my project continues to take shape, I’ll post details in this space.
Of course, most everyone at the meeting acknowledged that IT does everything they can do to support learning; however, their hands are often tied by insufficient resources – understaffed, underfunded, “under-bandwidthed” (my word ;-), and underappreciated. There are instances in which IT opposes projects for security and stability concerns, but those concerns are naturally at odds with the implementation of an emerging technology.
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...Grad School Scars . . .
Feb 12th
This is slightly off topic, but then again, since I’m *still* in grad school and working (slowly) on a dissertation which happens to be a Second Life project, perhaps it’s “on topic” to post it here. Indexed by Jessica Hagy provides a great deal of entertainment given the less-than-a-minute it takes to read each post – a good return on investment. Intelligent comedy. Read it. Add it to your reader.
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...Happy, Productive Returns from Second Life?
Feb 9th
I’ve been away for a while and am just now getting back into blogs and feeds; I’ve been wrestling with a question and taking my time to reflect and evaluate. As I started diving back into a few blogs and posts I wanted to be sure to read, I noticed this comment by Scott Merrick in reaction to a post by Kevin Jerrett at Story of My Second Life:
I’m also continually wrestling :) with the question about the viability of Second Life as an educational tool. I can say that it’s been remarkably important as a personal learning platform for me, and that it’s enriched my life by connecting me to other real human beings with whom I likely would never have come into contact without it. Maybe that’s enough, though I don’t see an end in sight. The big limiting factor, of course is the Big T, “Time.”
This is the same question I have: What are the gains associated with using Second Life in a learning space as compared to the resources invested necessary to produce those gains? Or, in other words, does the “Time” put into Second Life experiences justify the things we learn or gain from those experiences – the personal learning platform and connections Scott mentions. And, I’m not just talking about from an individual’s personal or professional development perspective either. What about the gains for learners in our virtual learning experiences? What sort of time are they having to put in focused on Second Life technology? Do they benefit enough to justify the time investment?
I believe those questions are particularly important given that Phillip Rosedale indicated in an interview with Speigel Online that one of the two most important issues Second Life needs to accomplish is, “Making it more usable. The user interface is still difficult, we need to make that better.” If the founder and CEO of the platform acknowledges the user interface is difficult, what costs are we enduring in virtual learning spaces within Second Life? I know educators are overcoming the obstacles and providing the necessary scaffolding for learners to be successful. BUT, do the ends justify the means? Are we getting enough out of it to justify the time invested by faculty, staff and students?
Additionally, the December 2007 issue of the Sloan-C View includes a brief article, “Second Life: A Viable Teaching Solution, or NOT?” From a workshop to introduce educators to Second Life, feedback was solicited regarding the pros, cons and concerns regarding the impact of Second Life on: Student Satisfaction, Faculty Satisfaction, Learning Effectiveness, Cost Effectiveness and Access. In short, the pros are what you might expect – constructivist environment, student-centered, simulation capabilities etc. And, the Cons and Concerns, for me, raise the question as to whether the benefits are worth the costs of: steep learning curves (listed 3+ times), time/effort, technology in foreground, training, system efficiency, technical resources etc.
Of course, I can’t just ask the question, “Is it worth the effort?” and stop. Go one step further, what are some ways in which the effort required and benefits received could be measured? And, what constitutes a sufficient return-on-investment for learning in Second Life?
I believe Joop van Schie at Aggiornamento II is conducting research that will begin to help answer that question. Joop has been interviewing educators in Second Life; at least a portion of each interview focuses on the educator’s professional opinion of (a) SL’s potential to be effective, (b) the perceived costs of achieving that potential, and the (c) perceived rewards or fringe benefits in applying that effort to achieve the potential. The results Joop will produce will provide an analysis of professional educator opinions regarding the power of Second Life as an educational tool which – according to Bernie Dodge’s formula (Power = Attention * Depth * Efficiency) – includes consideration of the efficiency of the system.
ROI image from RetailMarketingBlog.com
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...Spiegel Online’s Interview with Rosedale
Feb 8th
Second Life and Education is a new blog recently launched by Sarah “Intellagirl” Robbins; the blog is “dedicated to the ins and outs of K-20 education using Second Life . . . is written by educators and for educators, for those who are seasoned Second Life veterans and for those just starting out, for those who are dye-hards and those who are skeptics.“
A recent post by Jeremy Kemp in that space Linden Gaze Strengthens on Education called attention to an interview Phillip Rosedale did with Spiegel Online. I won’t recount the interview or Jeremy’s comments – both are worth the visit and read.
Jeremy referred to part of what I believe to be the most notable portion of the interview, and I wanted to highlight a little more of the context around the portion Jeremy quoted.
Spiegel Online commented,
The growth of Second Life, though, has subsided dramatically. Firms are pulling out…
Of course, the focus of the comment is on the post-hype/backlash downswing of the hype curve occurring for most businesses interested in extending their marketing to the virtual world. Did Rosedale explain why firms are pulling out? Did he suggest firms are not vacating Second Life? He didn’t do either…
Rosedale : The real business use of Second Life centers around collaboration and that is continuing to grow quite rapidly. There are more than 400 universities in Second Life and there are more than 4,000 teachers on our education mailing list. There might have been more enthusiasm and stronger growth in the first two quarters of 2007, but I think that the core growth in utility and in applications is still very strong. There’s been a media focus on marketing …
Jeremy quoted the first two sentences, but I think it’s significant that this comment was in response to the notion that firms are pulling out. For Rosedale’s response to that comment to fcous on the quantity of institutions and educators in Second Life is significant. “Firms are pulling out? Not really… The real business use of Second Life is growing quite rapidly – 400 universities and 4000 educators….”
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...Learning Scenario: Entrepreneurship
Feb 6th
I took a few minutes to track down Ann Enigma (SL) and discuss an Internet Entrepreneurship course for which she’s providing Second Life support; they’re planning a Second Life component for the course during this Spring term. The notion is to teach “fundamental business concepts by having students start business[es] in SL,” and they’re inviting any interested educators or entrepreneurs to participate by offering guest lectures and/or professional critiques of learner work. Ann and I had discussed assessment strategy in the past, so this conversation was a follow-up to see where the project is headed.
Learners are going to engage a custom, in-house registration and orientation portal; the orientation will be facilitated face-to-face in a campus computer lab, and learners will have had a 2-3 week overview of fundamental entrepreneurial concepts. For the Second Life component, they’re going to be issued “starter kits” and then choose a business location on “Rhode Island (more space) or Casablanca (less space, more traffic).” Learners will get a “store space, and examples of vendors and products . . . Each group of 3-4 students – mixed majors – will have to devise a product or service, create a business plan for it, and actually start that business.” With the land, prefabricated resources and small L$ grant, learners can do whatever they like within the scope of the assignment and the PG restriction ;-). Ultimately, “they are expected to write a business plan, attempt to implement the plan, and reflect on the result.”
Several thoughts from my instructional design perspective.
Scaffolding/Support. The approach to orientation Ann described is a good example of the type of pre-learning support students need before engaging SL for instructional purposes. Most faculty engaging learners via SL are providing orientations and support, but this course offers learners a SL orientation and solid introduction to the course concepts as well. Also, the prefabs, workspace and L$ offered to learners are invaluable as well; that support will get learners past much of the SL distractions not essential to the course.
Simulation. Ann described, “The hope is that analyzing the SL market will provide the same type of experience as analyzing an RL industry.” Second Life should definitely provide a more authentic opportunity for learners to engage the market experience, particularly when learners are going to be able to follow up that research experience with the process of actually starting the business in Second Life.
Assessment. Currently, the plan for deliverables learners will produce include the business plan and a reflective presentation at the end. The Second Life component will definitely add a layer of authenticity to the exercise and certainly opens the potential for more than a few learners to truly amaze and astonish those teaching the course. However, Ann indicated they’re still debating how best to grade the businesses given that the limited time and new experience with Second Life may make it difficult for the businesses to flourish or develop fully.
While using SL as the market in which to develop a product and business plan (a) adds authenticity to the exercise, (b) is certainly pertinent to the content of a course titled “Internet Entrepreneurship,” and (c) creates unique insights and revelations for learners as they reflect, I think SL may create an additional opportunity in this instance.
In a typical, more traditional learning environment, learners often don’t have the opportunity to engage potential investors or to self-finance/bootstrap in an effort to actually start a business, so learners read texts, listen to lectures, and perhaps watch videos and other media describing the different sections of a business plan before write a business plan for an imaginary business. Thus, developing AND presenting a business plan via SL and/or working to finance a start-up business presents an opportunity to accomplish goals and tasks not easily performed in a non-SL environment; to me, SL makes the “punchline of the course” – actually starting a business based upon a business plan and market research – obtainable.
Imagine . . . As a learner, I don’t just develop a product or service and a business plan for it; the work to research the market, estimate financial gains and expenses, and determine resource needs is only the beginning – just as it is in the physical world. I have to prepare a precise, persuasive oral presentation to potential investors or loan providers (or experienced entrepreneurs or other business educators lending a helping hand); I might have to complete a loan application or endure an interview with a small business development agent for a bank. No matter the situation, I have a limited opportunity to get what I need to get my dream off the ground. My life as an entrepreneur can be nerve wracking, and Second Life makes learning and coping with that anxiety possible along with everything else to be learned in an “Internet Entrepreneurship” course.
Looking forward to learning how this project turns out for Ann Enigma and colleagues.
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...ELI2008: Experiencing a Different Twitter
Jan 28th
Again, at ELI 2008 in San Antonio, I’m currently in a plenary session in which Henry Jenkins from MIT is speaking on “What Can Wikipedia Teach Us About the New Media Literacies?”
I’ve blogged on Twitter before (July 28 and July 30, 2007), and with the exception of my recent 4 week hiatus, I’ve been using it consistently and extensively since those original posts. However, I’ve not personally experienced one key affordance of Twitter: enabling a backchannel (kibbutz, for chess folks) for a more traditional speech/lecture. If you visit the ELI 2008 with Friends Twitter page and track back to approximately January 27 1:00pm CST/US, you’ll see the conversation that occurred via Twitter while Professor Jenkins spoke.
The quantity and multi-directional nature of communication currently occurring is mind-staggering, and that’s without getting too deeply into the Flickr stream for the event or searching for blogs with the ELIAnnual08, ELI2008 or ELI08AnnualMeeting tags (I’ve seen or heard it all three ways, but was just told via direct Tweet that the first is the “official” tag). I’ve known this could occur, but to experience it first hand with the volume at which it is happening is simply amazing. As I mentioned in the Twitter conversation, you can literally “hear” the backchannel via the keyboard clicks going on in the room; of course, having round tables to allow attendees to actually use their laptops makes a tremendous difference.
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...ELI2008: Changing Learning Cultures on Campus
Jan 28th
I’m attending the Educause Learning Initiative Annual Meeting in San Antonio and wanted to share a few thoughts regarding this morning’s preconference workshop – Changing Learning Cultures on Campus from Theory to Practice facilitated by Dr. Dieter Euler from the University of St. Gallen in Switzerland.
St. Gallen began, around 1999-2000, engaging a significant institutional initiative to “change the pedagogical profile” of the institution; the goal was to move “from a culture of teaching to a culture of cooperative self-learning incorporating technology.”
Initially, this sounds like a learning signature for the institution which guides the mission of teaching and learning within the University. I’ve encountered a learning signature before at Cy-Fair College in Houston. I wonder if such an explicit declarative statement is common among higher education institutions, if any institutions K-12 included. I believe the lack of such an explicit statement is one that has inhibited change in several institutions in which I’ve worked. Identifying the pedagogical philosophy of the institution seems to be key; defining that signature seems critical to making progress toward enhancing the pedagogical practice of those within the institution. The challenge and difficulty is to get those involved to agree on a pedagogical profile.
To accomplish the goal, St. Gallen established a specific agenda with four key points:
- curricular changes: more context-related subjects (25%); self-regulated learning environments making up a considerable part of the curriculum
- learning platform – potential to support communication
- pedagogical changes – learning environments representing the new learning & teaching culture
- strict quality-assurance system: introduction of rigorous evaluation procedures
Those points provided the background from which the main activity for the workshop was generated. The focus of the workshop was a small group, interactive simulation on how to create change within an institution. The computer-based simulation was fantastic; I encourage any educational change facilitators to take a look at this simulation. More information available at:
http://elearning-reviews.com/projects/educhallenge-en.html
The primary take-away for me from the simulation focused on the notion of formally approaching, considering or developing strategy for the use of informal networks. Could or should technology integrationists track and keep a cluster chart of informal data? For example, if Professor B indicates they heard about a technology from Professor A, should educational technologists make a practice of documenting that relationship in some manner for future reference? Does it not also make sense for educational and technology change agents to track profile information on relevant individuals and potential adopters?
I’m familiar with many of the preferences and tendencies of the faculty with whom I work, but that’s different from making a concerted effort to document, track and analyze the inter-relatedness of professional and social networks within the institution.
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...Second Life – Educator’s MUVE of Choice?
Jan 4th
A couple of weeks ago, I asked whether educators should be focusing on Second Life (as the MUVE of choice for education). The focal point of that question was the graphic released by KZero. Specifically, I asked:
If I were to begin exploration of virtual worlds as an educator with a blank slate – with zero knowledge of any virtual worlds – and were presented this graphic, which virtual world should I select to serve an educational interest? to introduce to learners in a formal learning environment? From behind that same veil of ignorance, given only this graphic, what would be the first strategic choice you’d make in regards to virtual worlds in learning environments: which would you choose?
Based on the graphic alone, I question whether educators should be focusing on Second Life as a MUVE platform. Quite simply, Second Life isn’t where our learners choose to be. Looking at the dotted lines (outermost arc and radii) I highlighted previously, the average SL resident – as represented by the graphic – is in the 0ver 30 demographic. Since my initial post, Stan Trevena offered a more specific look at the age grouping of active Second Life residents in a blog entry at PacificRimX from December 23:
-
Under 18 years old: 0.92% or 4,975 users
-
18 – 24 year olds: 24.62% or 133,806 users
-
25 – 34 year olds: 35.88% or 194,948 users
-
35 – 44 year olds: 23.29% or 126,559 users
-
45 and over: 14.77% or 126,559 users
-
unknown: 0.52% or 2,818 users
Two notable facts presented in that data. First, right at 75% of all SL residents are 25+ with more than half of those being 35+. Second, there’s less than 5,000 active users on the Teen Grid.
It’s probably easy to see where I’m going with this. If the vast majority of learners in formal learning environments are under the age of 25 – the growing population of older learners notwithstanding – should educators not be looking more closely at other MUVE’s that perhaps cater to and attract our target demographic more than Second Life appears to? Should There not be more of a factor in our discussions about facilitating education via MUVE’s given that, according to the KZero graphic, the average There user is in her early 20′s – and much more likely to be within an educator’s target demographic? Isn’t one of the mantras and justifications for greater use of technology in learning environments simply that educators should be using the tools that their learners are already using?
I know I’m oversimplifying the discussion at this point. I realize, as Aldon and Eloise pointed out on the SLED listserv, there are many other factors that should influence the choice of a MUVE for educational purposes other than a simple popularity contest. Stability, accessibility (in disability terms as well as technological ones), the ability to create rich appropriate educational content and extensibility all impact the conversation.
With that said, for the past year I’ve focused on Second Life exclusively. I’m aware of other MUVE’s, but I’ve not explored them for educational purposes. At the very least, my point is that I believe I need to look beyond Second Life to explore the possibilities in other MUVE’s; if I knew nothing of any virtual world, I would evaluate those that appeared most appropriate, so I believe I should take a step back and do that. At most, if my tunnel vision in regard to Second Life as the educator’s MUVE of choice for learning environments is typical of the SLED community, I believe a concerted effort to explore other virtual environments is a worthwhile consideration.
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...
Hot Topics