Outspoken students can approach instructors on multiple fronts while quite students may get lost in the static and unmotivated students might check out sort inventory, angel about, IM, or do any number of things in RL. Teachers in RL classrooms have developed techniques for interacting with their students and SL teacher need to to the same.

Trying to keeping track of distracted students and focused students can overwhelm a an instructors bandwidth and compromise their class. Likewise the class views itself as an unorganized collection of avatars. Personally, I don’t know most of the class members from each other and have a difficult time connecting their names, faces and their responses. So, the class is split into two realms – the class of the avatars interacting and the thread of communication. We need tools to tie them together and give the teacher a sense of the class.

Using color coded flags is a step in the right direction, but I’m interested in managing attendance and feedback with a whiteboard tool or HUD. We need a class hud attachment or a screen that displays suites of non-verbal feedback. We could also look at adopting some conventions for larger body language. The MIT “hot and cold” feedback asked students to move from one side of a grid or another to provide feedback. Similar, and less complex setups might be done with color coded circles in a sandbox.

In terms of data collection and grading, web 1.0 courseware like blackboard is still more appropriate. However, these systems lack the active participation and SL has more potential for assessing higher level thinking skills. In science labs, teachers are trained to make assessments through observing their students work and solve problems. They should be able to place students into broad grade level categories by engaging them and discussing outcomes and observing builds. The “click ball” type of assessment has the potential to address key knowledge themes allowing teachers more time for the later assessment.

I’m not sure these are any different, per se. We may be teaching more advanced concepts with more advanced students, but we could have a broad range of ability in either grid.

Teaching tools:

Again, I don’t think age appropriate for comprehension isn’t specific to the grid. A 16 year old taking AP physics in the TG would need the same teaching tools as a 25 year old returning for a second degree and taking entry-level science courses.

Spaces Available:

Seems to be a shortage of spaces but there is nothing intrinsic to the grid that limits creating spaces.

Facilitating new users:

Younger students may adapt better, but the limiting factors will be similar. The slowest kid and the slowest adult will likely be on par with each other. Adults may have larger networks for integrating new information.

Communication mechanisms

There are similar mechanisms but more traffic on the MG which allows for deeper experimentation.

Permissions

Much more difficult on the TG. Clearance for educators and teachers are more difficult, however this makes institutional buy-in easier.

Teacher Training:

Less opportunities but the teacher can learn on the MG. Nothing intrinsic to the grid prevents training opportunities, there’s just less traffic.

Overall I think the TG is just a smaller MG. If we cut the EdTech island off from the mainland we’d have similar problems and less opportunities. There’s nothing intrinsic to the TG that prevents opportunities except some limitations on meeting new people through social networking or visiting new islands.

Gibbons, H. & Wentworth, G.  (2001).  Andrological and pedagogical training differences for online instructors.  Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Volume IV, Number III.  As retrieved from http://www.emich.edu/cfid/PDFs/Andrological-Pedagogical-Training.pdf.

Creating Social Presence in Online Environments. Steven R. Aragon; from New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, Winter, 2003http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/106566818/PDFSTART

Online science students need to work with 3-d interactive learning objects in RL and working in 2 dimensions is limiting. Moreover, the degree of modeling and manipulation available in SL is superior to many classroom models. For example, plate tectonics is can be described grossly on a 2-dimensional plane – areas that come together and separate can be examined in cross section. However the corners of plates and the overall movement is compromised in two dimensions.  In three dimensions, three plates meet and can converge, diverge and slide against each other at one corner, but in two dimensions the directions of the plates are not shown correctly and students get confused about how the plates actually move. Likewise, the plates don’t fit together in quite right in 2-dimensions. Once, I had the opportunity to play with a 3-d magnetic globes that allowed me to slide the plates around on the surface and I’ve been able to relate that experince to students to try to describe it, but I haven’t been able to share or simulate this with them. I’ve encountered similar examples of motion misconceptions and the need for 3-d models are apparent in chemistry, physics, metorology and astronomy. The Coriolis effect and the motion of the sun, moon and earth need to be understood in three dimensions.

I’d like to direct my next teaching experince toward 3-d modeling and building. Right now I’m on the fence about weather a teacher should develop the model, or if the students should build the model themselves. I’m leaning toward the later with assistance from the teacher in the form of building blocks, however, unlike a museum exhibit, I don’t think the teacher needs to present the student with a complete model.

I’ve compiled my characteristics and supporting references for the classification I’ve been thinking about (over the past few years) and I’m placing some examples from the reading into these classes. This classification worked well for many web-based sims that I’ve encountered, but I believe that there some of the sims in SL require new categories. I’ll save that for next week.Barab, S.A.,

CLASSIFICATION 

SYMBOLIC
Students observe and test cause and effect relationships by manipulating symbols.
Note – symbols are “buttons” or sliders in this case. They’re not designed to represent or model reality. Often equivalent to pencil and paper activities. Avoid designing simulations that give answers transparently.

IN SL: I haven’t seen many examples of this in SL. I’ve only seen one or two examples of this in SL in the form of interactive boards. I think this is because the a developers would need to reverse-engineer the sim world. Some games and role-play devices and HUD’s incorporate symbolic elements.

VIRTUAL WORKBENCH
User works with tools that correspond to their real-life counterparts.

(These are widely recognized as virtual labs, but it is important to discriminate as many people call all manner of investigations virtual labs)

Create tools and work spaces that simulate real-life counterparts. Avoid creating ideal circumstances or improve on the intrinsic difficulties of a real lab. e.g., don’t make a frictionless table or a microscope that automatically centers the slide. Research shows learning outcomes and transference are equivalent to real labs. Promising for distance learning and where materials are inaccessible. (See Couture’s research on verisimilitude)

IN SL: Manipulating tools is difficult in SL. The avatar is basically a glorified reference point for a camera view. An av’s arms and legs are superficial. You can’t pick up a mass and set it on a scale very easily, for example, and most of the manipulation happens through a HUD or through a series of click menus. I’m looking for this type of sim. The readings referenced the

MODELING ENVIRONMENT
User builds environments and manipulates variables to perform tests.

IN SL: Model dynamic environments and give students control of many variables. Increases cognitive thinking, performance and problem solving skills. Research suggests that higher level thinking skills increase with the number of variables a student can control. (See McGee) These are common, but the dynamic elements are in the authors hands. An island like Svarga fits this category but the students are not able to manipulate the parameters.Examples:The readings referenced the http://www.exploratorium.edu/worlds/secondlife/ this appears to have potential, but I’ve been unable to find the island.

EXPERIENTIAL
This class may simply be a shift in perspective imposed on other types. User experiences simulation from the perspective of a character or population. These overlap into science learning games where the student has an objective and can also be simulations. McGee demonstrates an experiential simulation / modeling environment.

IN SL: Traditionally, this has been one of the more difficult sims to produce, but SL has many of these. Moreover, many of the modeling environment sims can be used in an experiential way.

Hay, K.E., Barnett, M., Keating, T. (2000). Virtual solar system project: building an understanding through model building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Volume 37, 719-756.

Francis, A., Couture, M. (2003) Credibility of a simulation-based virtual laboratory: an exploratory study of learner judgments of verisimilitude. Journal of Interactive Research, Volume 14.4, p 439-464.

McGee, S. Corriss, D., Shia, R. (2001) Using simulations to improve cognitive reasoning. Paper presented to the American Educational Research Association, Seattle Washington. ERA 2001.

Steinberg, R.N. (2000) Computers in teaching science: to simulate or not to simulate? American Association of Physics Teachers, Volume 68, p 37-40

Triona, L.M., Klahr, D.K. (2003). Point and click or grab and heft: comparing the influence of physical and virtual instructional materials on elementary school student’ ability to design experiments. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 149-173.

Van Eck, R. (2001). Promoting transfer of mathematics skills through the use of a computer-based instructional simulation game and advisement. Proceedings of the Annual Mid-South Instructional Technology Conference.

The The Daedelus Project and related links provided some insight on motivation. Data suggests that identifying with an avatar increases motivation and that students may share a common bond as they assist each other inworld and there does seem to be a connection between inworld users at the same learning level. Moreover, trying to figure out how to customize and change the avatar seems to increase one’s investment in the experience.

It seems that SL increases motivation but directing this motivation toward learning remains a challenge.

Its very interesting, for example, to find the power point displays in the clouds but they are terribly cumbersome to watch. I felt like I was logging into a virtual world on a high speed computer so I could experience the thrill of watching a slides on modem What happens when the novelty wears off?
All of our slides could have been zipped and emailed or delivered on a 2D web site. So, I can see the motivation that the Daedelus project discusses but I wonder if it has an expiration date.

I have a map that helps me map out what we could do in SL but I’m having difficulty finding good example. So my topics this week are (1) Are we using tools to playing school? and (2) Should we use these tools at all? / Do they have a place?

First, let me describe what I mean by “playing school.” I’ve seen a lot of tools and techniques that mimic classroom tools, museum and library experiences but do not improve up them and are more cumbersome than web standard web delivery. The interview with Milosun “How NOT to teach in Second Life”warns educators to avoid delivering curriculum with mimicked techniques, however one could make a case that simulating a classroom environment has some intrinsic benefit.

I’ve been teaching, working and developing teaching strategies in Elluminate and I’ve been comparing SL to this platform. There is no doubt the SL has potential beyond white board and application sharing techniques but I’ve haven’t seen anyone really improve upon it. Take the slide show / display board, for example. This is tool is useful for teaching in SL, but is it really a good teaching tool? If you had X number of dollars (or hours) to teach X number of objectives, the display board would be a very poor return on investment. The classrooms, meeting spaces and tools that I’ve seen (so far) allow us to play school. I think there are other reason to use SL and the use of these tools should be limited to brief information exchange.

Next week I’m going to take a harder look at how we can teach in SL. I’m trying to find key areas where educators are using SL to deliver content in new and more meaningful ways. I’m looking for subjects and techniques where one would clearly stay “If you need to teach X the best way to do that is in a virtual environment.”

Broad categories of SL as a learning environment:
Distance learning provided some original motivation to create virtual worlds and related simulations; however virtual worlds have benefits beyond replicating a classroom experience that make them beneficial learning environments. Virtual worlds are (1) Creative learning spaces where students can design, manipulate and simulate. (2) Foster collaboration through immersion and shared presence.  

Broad categories of simulated experiences: Virtual worlds are modeling environments and, therefore, have intrinsic properties that make them ideal for modeling and simulations. Education simulations can be grouped into two broad groups:  

(1) Experiential, where the user experiences simulation from the perspective of a character or population. 

(2) Modeling Environments, where user builds environments and manipulates variables to perform tests.