Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

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.

He closes with a discussion about the choice of technology for a remote presentation with colleagues from the UK to an audience in Kuala Lumpur. In short, Elluminate was chosen over Second Life:Not only were we going to have to trust the technical robustness of the platform (gulp) but we were also forced to assess the question of added value from using Second Life? Fighting server lag, low bandwidth problems, variable audio quality and the sheer awkwardness of manipulating an in-world slide viewer were just too much to contemplate so we shifted to the Elluminate.

here is a vision for SL that would help make it more usable - a whiteboard, an integrated IRC type chat client and a status indicator panel.

I agree that the whiteboard is missing and as I've argued elsewhere, this highlights SL's fundamental problem with handling text-like documents in any collaborative sense.

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.

ou can hear the text which people are writing to the textchat as a human voices! You can stream using Second Life voicechat your chat text by a human voice of your selection - man or woman voice, any language, accent, age etc. (basic english voices included, fairly usable, but for better results it's needed to get professional voices from internet) You can even use speech recognition and convert in text what you are telling to the microphone!

And what exactly is E.V.A.? Is is a special software voice interface for Second Life (for MS-Windows platform and S.A.P.I. 5 only so far). Simply said - it is a "text to speech" and "speech to text" software interface connected to the SL text chat, an enhancement of the Second Life integrated voice chat or is even usable without it.

Question: How is program getting text from the SL? Will I need to setup something in prefferences? Answer: Yes, you will need to enable chat logging at the Comunication tab in SL prefferences panel. Program is reading the text from the chat log file

“People who work within SL will find it not a lot of fun, to work in an area where you can’t create the content yourself,” Andrews said.  Andrews did state frequently that Lively is a good introduction to a virtual world for someone very new to this experience.More information about ASU's use of Lively is available at http://beta.asu.edu/myworld/

Gee sees the current U.S. educational system as inadequate to the task of addressing the problems of an increasingly complex world. He stated that “21st century learning must be about understanding complex systems,” and he believes many video games do a better job at this than the antiquated sender-receiver teaching model that dominates American classrooms.

Gee sees two separate educational systems operating today: one a traditional approach to learning; the other what Gee calls “passion communities.” In Gee's view, the latter produce real knowledge. Video games, virtual worlds and online social networks provide environments in which these passion communities can form and thrive

Passion communities encourage and enable people of all ages to do extraordinary things. Gee believes the 'amateur knowledge' that arises from this immersive involvement often surpasses 'expert knowledge,' and cited fantasy baseball as an example. The boundaries between the 'fantasy' game and the 'real' game have been blurred because fantasy players' expertise in statistical analysis has had a measurable impact on how MLB teams evaluate players.

"2007 - Without using Second Life, student interview skills average grade: 58%," Ken Hudson of Loyalist told New World Notes. "2008 - after using Second Life simulation, student interview skills average grade: 86%."

Two excellent people who I’ve had occasion to work with a few times have, over the past eighteen months, worked for Language Lab, the ‘life-based learning’ language school based entirely in SL. They’re no longer there, for reasons which are unknown to me.