Group items tagged

Learning in virtual worlds

The notion of distance

Of the respondents 28 were female and two were male. The youngest respondent was born in 1984 and the oldest respondent was born in 1952. Half of the respondents were born before 1967.

Advantages of Second Life over web-conferencing

Experience - whereas video is a one-way, passive experience, SL is a group one. This is a completely different dynamic, if the presentation makes use of it. If they just passively show a video, they might as well be on the web. Think of it, when done well, as comparing sitting in a movie vs at a comedy show where the audience can yell out comments that are instantly worked into the skit. Collaboration - participants get a completely different experience when they 'see' each other. It is more involving and interactive. This gives the speaker a chance to gather instant feedback, adjusting the presentation on the fly. There is even software for SL that allows participants to give feedback at specified times via their keyboard. Also, we find that "leaders" emerge in virtual focus groups, who often bring out information from others but don't dominate as they might in a "real" focus group. Screening - starting with a larger group, sub-groups can be created based on criteria such as beginners, those giving great feedback, gender, etc. These avatars can be instantly transported into other prepared rooms or SL environments for follow up, further Q&A, take a tour, etc. Also, participants can click on each other's profiles and learn about each other, something many like to do.

Spatiality - in a three-dimensional space people can move, and use proximity and distance to each other or to objects (for example for group building, voting by feet, to 'physically' separate collaboration tasks from one another, or just to non-verbally communicate preferences). In video conferencing, all you see is somebody else's mimics. There is no concept of space at all - which is crucial, however: remember Nonaka's Ba. Embodiment - being virtually embodied as an avatar can augment the feeling of co-presence, the feeling of being there together with your colleagues, peers, or collaboration team, etc. Directing your virtual representation, you visualize where your attention is at every point in time. In a video conference, nobody knows if you are paying attention or just looking at a totally different application on your screen. Configurability and scriptability - a virtual world can be more than a container for space, physics and avatars. Realized as a reactive, interactive and maybe even intelligently behaving environment it can harbor, support, and augment rich user experiences.

... according to an otherwise nice article (pdf) on media for science communication in the latest Society for General Microbiology's Microbiology Today. The author makes use of SL for professional purposes so is very much entitled to her opinion.

Of course, the mission of the CDC isn't to produce microbiology sims for use by UK teachers (though the mission of the sim isn't actually explained anywhere so I could be wrong). However, in addition to a conference centre there are some virtual labs where you can get a hazmat suit (no hazard warning signs anywhere though so presumably no need to wear?), sit at a microscope and look at some slides. The slides and adjacent equipment are not explained or apparently part of any theme or quest. There are a few computers, including one linked to the NHS website for no obvious reason (some reuse, perhaps?).Indeed, much of the open air part of the site seems to act as an interface, via signs, to the CDC website (so why not just go there?). A slightly better touch is a circular path that documents the various awareness themes for the calendar year and this appears to link into a bracelet. There are some bots with no obvious function. Compared to the adjacent Healthinfo Island, it is (i) much more polished, (ii) much less engaging.

However, it would still seem that neither the SGM nor CDC "get" virtual worlds in any meaningful way yet.

Two British researchers have just completed a study of undergraduate students that found "many young students are far from being the epitomic global, connected, socially-networked technologically-fluent digital native who has little patience for passive and linear forms of learning."

Instead, the study found that students use a limited range of technologies for both formal and informal learning and that there is a "very low level of use and familiarity with collaborative knowledge creation tools such as wikis, virtual worlds, personal web publishing, and other emergent social technologies."

The study included a questionnaire survey of 160 students, followed up by in-depth interviews with 8 students and 8 staff members at both institutions. The findings show that many young students are far from being the epitomic global, connected, socially-networked technologically-fluent digital native who has little patience for passive and linear forms of learning. Students use a limited range of technologies for formal and informal learning. These are mainly established ICTs - institutional VLE, Google and Wikipedia and mobile phones. Students make limited, recreational use of social technologies such as media sharing tools and social networking. Findings point to a very low level of use and familiarity with collaborative knowledge creation tools such as wikis, virtual worlds, personal web publishing, and other emergent social technologies.