Posts tagged research
Forthcoming: Review of Literature on Net Generation Learners
Dec 6th
I have been hammering feverishly on my dissertation, which may or should be obvious given my last four posts. The focus of my dissertation is Computer Literacy Skills of Community College Learners. One upside to my dissertation process, in my opinion, is that it’s a “non-traditional” format; rather than the typical five chapter dissertation, I have to produce an introduction and a conclusion wrapped around three independent manuscripts prepared and ready for publication: seems to me to be a more useful process and product than a traditional dissertation. Currently, I’ve completed the first round of revisions on manuscript #1, a critical literature review; the abstract (as it stands at the moment) for that document is: More >
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...In the blue corner . . . NVivo 9!
Dec 4th
My relationship with NVivo 9 has become combative; it’s an outright, unsanctioned fight under MQCA rules (mixed qualitative coding arts). The report I needed from NVivo 9 was a list of all coding references with each having a list of the codes/nodes to which it was assigned. I’ve already spent one, previous post ranting about the fact that NVivo 9 can not perform that task: one that seems to be a basic necessity of qualitative research and analysis. It took more than a few hours of tinkering and learning, but I’ve managed to learn how to accomplish a reasonable facsimile of that report. I’ll try to describe what I’ve done in enough detail so that it may be helpful to others perhaps struggling with or learning NVivo 9 as I am. Read on if interested; otherwise, return your browser to its regularly scheduled viewing activity. More >
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...Are you kidding me NVivo 9?
Dec 2nd
Let me say up front that I realize when it comes right down to it, the situation I’m in is ultimately my fault. I made an assumption. I made an assumption regarding the capabilities of NVivo 9 – software developed specifically for the purpose of qualitative analysis of resource. I made that assumption; coded a lot of data, and now can not get the ONE report I need and want the most. Can I continue with the analysis without this report? To some extent yes. Is my research process hindered by not having the report I need? Absolutely.
So, why am I complaining publicly about it? I don’t believe the assumption I made was or is an unreasonable one; the assumption is quite logical, in my opinion. So, I’m putting it to the masses to (a) get your opinion regarding how reasonable or not my assumption may have been and (b) hopefully stumble across someone that has found a solution or workaround to get the reprort I want.
If you didn’t glaze over at NVivo 9 and are still with me, read on for details.
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...Adventures with NVivo 9
Nov 28th
Working on the qualitative analysis for my dissertation (see previous post for a general description of the topic), I jumped off into NVivo 9 today with little to no prior experience with the software. I have formal education experience with qualitative analysis, though not with the software. It’s been an adventure to say the least. I’m posting that adventure (a) to share with others perhaps looking for any hints or ideas to help them in their own adventure and (b) to expose my current approach to any colleagues with more NVivo 9 experience that may care to comment. More >
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...Survey Research in Virtual Worlds by Typewriter Tackleberry
Apr 26th
I’m attending various sessions of Clever Zebra’s vBusiness Expo this afternoon; the first session of the day, for me, focused on conducting research in Second Life. In particular, the second speaker of the session was Typewriter Tackleberry (Mark Bell, co-author SL for Dummies); Mark focused on a survey tool he’s developed to be used entirely in world. This tool will certainly have relevance to any researchers working in and through Second Life.
The premise behind the tool is a need to be able to conduct survey research in-world without, as Mark put it, “breaking the immersion” of the virtual environment. In short, the primary solution for conducting research in Second Life, at the moment, is to “push people out to the web from Second Life.” This creates an incongruous situation for users of completing a survey about a virtual environment that they’re no longer in. To resolve that issue and potential impact it may have on research, Mark worked with SWI (Strategic Worlds Initiative, if I remember correctly) to develop a survey tool that’s entirely in-world.
As Typewriter described it, survey respondents simply: pick up a survey from a distribution point, wear it as a HUD, and complete the survey on screen. Two significant features he described were (a) the survey moves through the questions automatically as each is completed and (b) the survey recognizes the individual avatar and stores that information – that allows the survey to be resumed if SL happens to crash for the user while they’re completing the survey and precludes avatars from submitting multiple responses to the same survey.
Typewriter described the architecture as relying on llHTTPRequest to PHP to MySQL. Of course, to many educators, that’s greek. Ultimately, that structure allows the data to be transparently transferred to a web-based database from which it can be exported to a variety of other file formats for use in data analysis applications like SPSS or Excel.
One situation this does create, however, is that the specific survey details must be created within the HUD each time – i.e. the HUD needs to know who owns the survey, where the data will be sent etc. It sounded as though Typewriter will be offering this as a service, at least initially; basically, any organization or researcher that wants to use the instrument will work with Typewriter to have the survey created with the architecture and then administered in world. With my audio cutting out a couple of times, I couldn’t tell if this will be a fee-based service or if it’s something that’s going to be available; I’m assuming it will be a fee-based service since it will be time intensive for Typewriter and/or the team working on the tool.
The next logical step for this tool is to further integrate the web-based tools with the SL tools; I can imagine but don’t have the skills to develop a web-based interface which researchers may use to set up their survey and the data store for it; the survey HUD then is generated automatically delivered to the user.
A very interesting note from the presentation; Typewriter is working with the Institutional Review Board from his institution to discuss the status and nature of survey research in Second Life; in many research situations, the request should be able to be expedited or exempt. His approach has been to explain the tool as basically being the same as a web-based survey tool (SurveyMonkey or Zoomerang); it’s just a different interface within a different environment.
This is great, relevant work for educators and the private sector alike. I’ve really appreciated the vBusiness Expo program as it blends both sectors into a single conference program. It’s a worthwhile look if you haven’t already; the program is available online at Clever Zebra, and I believe the slides from the presentation should be available there in the next week or so, as well.
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...Collaborative Research @ Digital Ethnography
Mar 15th
Hopefully, you are familiar with the videos produced by Dr. Michael Wesch and the Digital Ethnography project at Kansas State; if you haven’t seen A Vision of Students Today or Information R/Evolution, I recommend you take the time to view those and others.
However, Dr. Wesch’s February 27th post is just as valuable a resource, to me, as the videos he and his students have produced. The post describes the mashup of various collaborative tools he and his students are using to conduct their research, and of course, the workspace is publicly available. It’s an incredible opportunity for any faculty member to browse through the work they are doing, and more importantly, how they are accomplishing it.
The most personally revelatory aspect of the research platform is how they are using NetVibes to juxtapose the data collection point (YouTube) and the data entry point (Zoho Creator form on the right) on the same web page. Within that, the use of web-based forms isn’t new, but I’ve not looked closely enough at the Zoho tools in the past to consider how the forms and spreadsheets could be used to collect the data in that manner. Of course, this time around, a better personal familiarity with that concept following Google’s release of the same feature – forms attached to Google Spreadsheets – made the idea sink in a bit more. Seeing it in action certainly helps.
Anyone working with or working to promote the use of collaborative documents and tools should take the time to browse through the research platform created by the Digital Ethnography working group at Kansas State.
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...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 ...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 ...Lisa Dawley on Instructional Design for Virtual Worlds
Dec 1st
I had the opportunity to watch a recorded archive of Dr. Lisa Dawley’s online presentation from Tuesday, November 27: Persistent Social Learning: An Emergent ID Model for Virtual World Design. Dr. Dawley (SL: Mali Young) is Chair & Associate Professor of the Department of Educational Technology at Boise State University and the designer of EDTECH Island in Second Life. The presentation focuses on what she believes is an emerging instructional design (ID) model for the development of virtual learning environments.
Initially, Dr. Dawley describes potential shortcomings of traditional ID models regarding the development of virtual learning environments and resources; specifically, the literature suggests the traditional models (e.g. Dick & Carey’s model and the more generic ADDIE model) are too process oriented, too static and too linear – leading to games or environments that don’t meet user expectations. I certainly understand the D&C model fitting into that category; I’ve always understood it to have more cognitivist, information processing philosophical underpinnings. The ADDIE model, as I understand it however, does not inherently have a cognitivist orientation; the instructional designer’s philosophy of teaching and learning influences specific strategies within the design phase, so the ADDIE model may be used to guide the development of more constructivist learning resources.
The challenge, according to Dr. Dawley, is to create a virtual environment that is engaging and draws learners in, and we can’t necessarily do that using traditional ID models. I agree entirely with that issue. I do believe there are two issues we, as an instructional design community, must address to meet that challenge. First, we must design and develop engaging virtual environments. Second, perhaps more importantly, we must design and develop engaging learning experiences within those virtual environments. I think the situation is somewhat analogous to an issue I’ve encountered recently regarding the use of iTunes: many colleges and universities are signing on with iTunes, but that’s only the delivery mechanism – the key to effective podcasting is the auditory content.
The presentation focuses on the first challenge: lessons learned while developing an effective and engaging virtual learning environment – specifically, Dawley’s work with EDTECH Island. For me, the first three phases of her research empirically corroborates the observational data published by Jennings & Collins (2007). For example, Jennings & Collins’ research compiled data regarding the educational institutions’ use of signage, pathways, maps and teleports on land parcels to facilitate visitor engagement and use of the space. Through the first phases of research, Dr. Dawley has collected empirical data validating the impact of those build design strategies; more importantly, her research also reveals the relative importance of building tutorials for learners, information sharing tools, meeting places, social/living areas, and group notices for increasing traffic and engaging visitors. As she summarizes, the evidence indicates navigational pathways and group notices have a definitive impact on engagement with social events and living spaces being less influential.
There were three other notable aspects of the presentation, in my opinion.
First, the data collection tools were new to me. I am familiar with visitor counters, but Maya Realities Second Life Traffic Analysis is quite impressive, to say the least. The metrics very easily evaluate the ROI of an institution’s SL space. I could try to explain it in detail, but it’s much easier to take a look at the presentation starting at the 25:30 mark (roughly halfway on the progress bar) and browse the Maya Realities website.
Second, one suggestion for increasing traffic to certain areas was to “put the milk in the back” – the grocery store notion of placing the highest volume product at the back of the store. That requires visitors to walk past everything else on the way to the high volume product. From a marketing perspective, that principle may work. From an instructional perspective, I believe it will be counterproductive. In any educational environment, we’re not trying to sell product; we’re trying to get learners to engage specific content in certain ways. Placing that content “behind” other interesting content which is ultimately a distractor is inconsistent with instructional and web design principles.
That leads to the third idea. An attendee suggested that we’re beginning to encounter and engage usability and design issues for virtual environments that are analogous to the earliest issues regarding the usability of web-based learning environments. Certainly, observing and participating in the convergence of architectural, game, instructional, and web design principles will influence the effectiveness of virtual learning environments.
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...Study of Educational Institutions in Second Life
Nov 19th
Nancy Jennings and Chris Collins (SL: Fleep Tuque), of the University of Cincinnati, have a research study that’s been published in the International Journal of Social Science. From the abstract of the report, Virtual or Virtually U: Educational Institutions in Second Life
Educational institutions are increasingly exploring the affordances of 3D virtual worlds for instruction and research, but few studies have been done to document current practices and uses of this emerging technology. This observational survey examines the virtual presences of 170 accredited educational institutions found in one such 3D virtual world called Second Life®, created by San Francisco based Linden Lab®. The study focuses on what educational institutions look like in this virtual environment, the types of spaces educational institutions are creating or simulating, and what types of activities are being conducted.
Most notably, to me, of the 170 institutions examined by the study, only 71, about 41.8%, occupied land. Of those, only 1 operates more than one island, less than half (32) occupied a full island, and the remaining land-owning institutions averaged 2046 square meters in virtual space. I believe that suggests an interesting benchmark for institutions currently planning to enter Second Life. 2046 square meters is only 1/32 of a region/sim/island, and the monthly maintenance fees are only $15/month; certainly, that is limited space, but with so many institutions possessing that parcel size, the cost to enter and experiment with Second Life may be much less than what many institutions imagine.
The research report also describes a number of possible benchmarks and best practices for institutions choosing to purchase land in Second Life: signage, branding, footpaths, welcome information, maps/diagrams of locations, teleport centers, etc. Further, the report describes the visible uses of land space and concludes with two case studies of notable institutions/organizations with a Second Life presence. Definitely worth a read.
As a professional side note, Chris/Fleep continues to facilitate the development of educational work in Second Life. This research report, possibly the first of its kind, follows up the work she’s already done with ISTE and the outstanding Second Life Best Practices in Education conference held in May of which she was a key player.
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...
Hot Topics