This study examines students’ reactions to the virtual biosciences laboratory developed in Second Life® (SL) at the University of East London. Final year undergraduates and masters students studying biotechnology took part in a trial of a virtual Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) experiment in Second Life and evaluated their experience by anonymous questionnaire. Learning gains were measured at various points during the study using pre- and post-tests, and interaction with demonstrators was monitored and compared during the real life (RL) practical. Both groups showed a significant increase in learning gain over the pre- and post-tests, although no difference in gains between the two groups was detected. However, students who conducted the PCR experiment in SL required significantly less demonstrator assistance during the subsequent RL practical. The SL practical was well received by students, with 92% of participants reporting that they would like to use the system again and many requesting other experiments to be made available in this manner in the future.

The aim of this study was to determine whether conducting the PCR experiment in the virtual world of Second Life produced similar learning gains to those observed in the physical world laboratory and to see if working in the Virtual Lab enhanced students understanding of the experiment. The student perceptions of the Virtual Lab as a teaching mechanism and the perceived impact on their learning was examined through questionnaires.

The SL group completed a pre(virtual) Lab quiz and then individually registered for Second Life to create an avatar under instructor supervision. Each student completed some orientation exercises on UEL Island to become adequately skilled in using the Second Life environment (e.g. flying, putting on clothing etc.). The student avatars then met in the Virtual Lab to perform the PCR experiment. This was initially demonstrated by a member of staff before each student completed the virtual experiment themselves. Throughout this teaching session the students received face to face and virtual communication from their instructor.

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.

There is now a page on assessment within Second Life in the Second Life Skills section of the EPED website which includes a couple of different assessment rubrics for student work in Second Life. One is aimed more at assessing a traditional class which has some presentation of the work in Second Life. The other is aimed much more at a fully in-world assessment where the students create a fully interactive build and are assessed on all aspects of it. It also forms a useful check-list for educational builds of all types! If you have comments, please feel free to add them in the comments here. If you would like to add additional content, let me know and I will add it for you.

There were fantastic opportunities to chat with other avatars about the course content, view videos and PowerPoint presentations. One of the really unique features to taking a course in Second Life was the ability to facilitate small group work. At points during the course we were sent away to another level in the sky to work collaboratively on a task before feeding back to the rest of the group. We didn’t hear other groups and they didn’t hear us

My experience was extremely positive. Having attended many courses in real life over the years, and having also attended many meetings and other events using technologies such as video conferencing and instant messaging, I can honestly say that Second Life is an extremely effective mechanism for use in training.

The course consisted of PowerPoint presentations, content delivery by speaker, watching videos and also discussion, both as a whole group and in small groups. In the latter, the discussion documents were edited and shared by all the people taking part.

So, research would suggest that the more you commit to teaching using Second Life, the better you feel about it, and the better you think your student's learning experience went too. What are you waiting for - get stuck in today.

“I thought, ‘Gosh, this is amazing! You can teach classes in it’,” he recalls. The first time he taught a course registered in Second Life, Professor Washburn, a.k.a. Duncan Innis, led a 15-week, one-hour lecture to 25 students in the island’s amphitheatre.

There is no audio, just words flashing on screen like an MSN chat session. The discussion veers from “fluff journalism” to magazine branding. Nobody raises their hand to voice an opinion; an avatar makes a typing motion in the air if it wants to comment. Professor Washburn and his students often interrupt each other, since you can type whenever you want.

The learning curve that comes with Second Life is a drawback mentioned by all professors, online communications personnel and students, and this is one factor that makes some universities reluctant to use the program. Jason Toal, who works at SFU as an experience designer, spearheads most of the university’s projects in Second Life. “If you’re going to use Second Life for your course, you need to spend at least the first couple of classes teaching your students how to use it,” he says. “You have to walk them through what it’s all about, how to hook it on your computer.”

From next year, lectures at Glasgow Caledonian University will encourage the student nurses to test their knowledge and skills by entering the virtual world of Second Life and create their own online character, known as an avatar. The student nurses can then assess a range of virtual patients which lecturers have programmed in advance with a variety of ailments. Nursing lecturers hope students will use an avatar to explore the virtual hospital in Second Life and treating the virtual patients. This will allow the student nurses to practice their theory in a safe environment without fear of making mistakes.

'Avatars have been created to represent typical patients and they can interact with our nursing students' avatars to allow them to carry out patient assessments. Each patient can be controlled by a tutor or by artificial intelligence and has a different history and reason for being admitted to hospital, as well as the ability to respond to a broad range of questions. The assessments are recorded and can be analysed later with the student's tutor.'

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.