MUVEForward

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.

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.

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.

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