At the session yesterday we spoke a little about the need for students (and others) to have a positive first experience of SL. This came up more than once in the discussion and I agree it is very important.
Of course... it's an easy statement to make but it does rather assume that we know what positive means in this context. I’m not convinced that we yet understand well enough what people like about SL to be able to guarantee a positive first experience.
Thinking back, my own first experience was pretty negative actually. I found Orientation Island confusing and pointless. The very first words anyone said to me in SL were "You are ugly". Don't worry, I was big enough to take it on the chin :-). Anyway, they were right, I was ugly… and I had a big chin! I’d made a bad choice of first avatar and then hit the randomise button and not known what to do to recover! :-) Finally I left Orientation Island and went to some random location where I walked around in your typical kind of SL wilderness – virtual tumbleweed being blown across the scene would have completed the experience. To make matters worse, the only person I met ran away! :-)
So what turned the experience round for me? Well, it was four things really…
Firstly, I met up with someone I knew (Paul Miller as it happens) on the then very new Cybrary City sim. We chatted for a bit, and bumped into one or two friendly librarians that I didn't know. But overall it was a very welcoming experience.
Secondly, I realised that I could make my own tee-shirts very easily. And I found that giving away the results gave a nice warm glow.
Thirdly, I discovered scripted objects, building and the joy of generally wasting time in sandboxes (even when they are empty) and then blogging about it.
Finally, I realised that I liked adopting a different character - my in-world avatar. I liked the fact that I could speak as Art Fossett rather than Andy Powell. I know this sounds weird - but for me, it is part of what makes SL work.
In the meeting yesterday I tried to push the idea of 'building as pedagogy' in Second Life. Again, I'm on very thin ice here, since I consider myself to be a lay person in these matters, but bear with me. By building I really mean doing – so 'building an object', 'scripting', 'designing and making a costume', 'creating textures', 'running an event', 'putting on a play', 'role playing', 'making a video', and umpteen other things all come under the category of building as far as I'm concerned.
For me, a positive first experience is about helping people to recognise that building in SL is a key part of its fun. I think the same applies to learning in SL – it has to be centered around 'doing', not 'receiving'. As Babbage Linden said yesterday – SL is the Chemistry Set not the chemistry lecture.
Showing posts with label efsym2007. Show all posts
Showing posts with label efsym2007. Show all posts
Wednesday, 20 June 2007
Being where the students are
One of the mini-themes that came up in the symposium follow-up session yesterday was about if and why students are already in SL. I made the point that one of the arguments quite often put forward around the importance of universities (and, for example, libraries) getting into SL is because that is where the students are.
I’m not sure I buy that argument. Are students really in SL already? My minimal experience says, no, they are not – at least not in any significant numbers. Not yet.
That leaves us, as educators (I include myself in that group very loosely!), in an odd position it seems to me. Not only have we got to be convinced that 3-D virtual worlds will allow us to impart learning better than we do now, but we also have to convince our learners that there is sufficient benefit to joining SL as well. A pretty tall order right now - or so it seems to me?
Babbage Linden made the point that only about 1 in 10 of people get SL anyway. I don’t have any reason to doubt this figure. So in a tutor group of 30, only 3 will naturally understand what SL is about - the rest will not get it, some will give up, some will persevere without really liking what they are being asked to do, some will be totally bemused... you get the picture.
Why do so few get it? I can’t answer that question... I do get it, or at least I think I do, but I can’t easily verbalise why (though I have tried) - so I’m at a loss as to why others don’t.
What are the comparable figures for other Learning 2.0 applications? How many people get blogs, or Twitter, or whatever?
I guess that is why applications like Facebook do so well currently - because the percentage of people who get what the application is all about is significantly higher.
What does this mean for educators in SL? Well firstly, it gives us a pretty steep hill to climb. No worries, I enjoy climbing - so I don’t think it is a reason to lose interest entirely, though it might make us modify our expectations a little?
I think it probably also means that we need to give up thinking about SL as an inclusive activity for all students. Instead, we should see it as one option among many - a valid way of completing an assignment, but not the only way. I think that means that we need to think quite hard about what kinds of assignments we give to people. For example, a given bit of group work might be able to be completed by using a face to face discussion, or by collaborating thru blog writing, or by an in-world activity, or by some combination of the above - with the resulting coursework being submitted as a jointly authored traditional essay, a set of blog entries, machinima, … whatever. There are, of course, significant implications for assessment - and our understanding of the expected learning outcomes of any bit of work is, as always, absolutely paramount.
Professionally, I’m out of my depth at this point. I speak only as a lay person - and I should therefore probably shut up. But the overall point is that we need to reconceptualise "being where our students are" as "engaging with out students in ways that are meaningful and useful to them" and we need to remember that SL currently only fits the bill for a small proportion – for others it will be blogs or in Facebook or...
And for some it may continue to be in the lecture theatre! :-)
I’m not sure I buy that argument. Are students really in SL already? My minimal experience says, no, they are not – at least not in any significant numbers. Not yet.
That leaves us, as educators (I include myself in that group very loosely!), in an odd position it seems to me. Not only have we got to be convinced that 3-D virtual worlds will allow us to impart learning better than we do now, but we also have to convince our learners that there is sufficient benefit to joining SL as well. A pretty tall order right now - or so it seems to me?
Babbage Linden made the point that only about 1 in 10 of people get SL anyway. I don’t have any reason to doubt this figure. So in a tutor group of 30, only 3 will naturally understand what SL is about - the rest will not get it, some will give up, some will persevere without really liking what they are being asked to do, some will be totally bemused... you get the picture.
Why do so few get it? I can’t answer that question... I do get it, or at least I think I do, but I can’t easily verbalise why (though I have tried) - so I’m at a loss as to why others don’t.
What are the comparable figures for other Learning 2.0 applications? How many people get blogs, or Twitter, or whatever?
I guess that is why applications like Facebook do so well currently - because the percentage of people who get what the application is all about is significantly higher.
What does this mean for educators in SL? Well firstly, it gives us a pretty steep hill to climb. No worries, I enjoy climbing - so I don’t think it is a reason to lose interest entirely, though it might make us modify our expectations a little?
I think it probably also means that we need to give up thinking about SL as an inclusive activity for all students. Instead, we should see it as one option among many - a valid way of completing an assignment, but not the only way. I think that means that we need to think quite hard about what kinds of assignments we give to people. For example, a given bit of group work might be able to be completed by using a face to face discussion, or by collaborating thru blog writing, or by an in-world activity, or by some combination of the above - with the resulting coursework being submitted as a jointly authored traditional essay, a set of blog entries, machinima, … whatever. There are, of course, significant implications for assessment - and our understanding of the expected learning outcomes of any bit of work is, as always, absolutely paramount.
Professionally, I’m out of my depth at this point. I speak only as a lay person - and I should therefore probably shut up. But the overall point is that we need to reconceptualise "being where our students are" as "engaging with out students in ways that are meaningful and useful to them" and we need to remember that SL currently only fits the bill for a small proportion – for others it will be blogs or in Facebook or...
And for some it may continue to be in the lecture theatre! :-)
Being where the students are
One of the mini-themes that came up in the symposium follow-up session yesterday was about if and why students are already in SL. I made the point that one of the arguments quite often put forward around the importance of universities (and, for example, libraries) getting into SL is because that is where the students are.
I’m not sure I buy that argument. Are students really in SL already? My minimal experience says, no, they are not – at least not in any significant numbers. Not yet.
That leaves us, as educators (I include myself in that group very loosely!), in an odd position it seems to me. Not only have we got to be convinced that 3-D virtual worlds will allow us to impart learning better than we do now, but we also have to convince our learners that there is sufficient benefit to joining SL as well. A pretty tall order right now – or so it seems to me?
Babbage Linden made the point that only about 1 in 10 of people get SL anyway. I don’t have any reason to doubt this figure. So in a tutor group of 30, only 3 will naturally understand what SL is about – the rest will not get it, some will give up, some will persevere without really liking what they are being asked to do, some will be totally bemused... you get the picture.
Why do so few get it? I can’t answer that question… I do get it, or at least I think I do, but I can’t easily verbalise why (though I have tried) – so I’m at a loss as to why others don’t.
What are the comparable figures for other Learning 2.0 applications? How many people get blogs, or Twitter, or whatever?
I guess that is why applications like Facebook do so well currently – because the percentage of people who get what the application is all about is significantly higher.
What does this mean for educators in SL? Well firstly, it gives us a pretty steep hill to climb. No worries, I enjoy climbing - so I don’t think it is a reason to lose interest entirely, though it might make us modify our expectations a little?
I think it probably also means that we need to give up thinking about SL as an inclusive activity for all students. Instead, we should see it as one option among many – a valid way of completing an assignment, but not the only way. I think that means that we need to think quite hard about what kinds of assignments we give to people. For example, a given bit of group work might be able to be completed by using a face to face discussion, or by collaborating thru blog writing, or by an in-world activity, or by some combination of the above – with the resulting coursework being submitted as a jointly authored ‘traditional’ essay, a set of blog entries, machinima, … whatever. There are, of course, significant implications for assessment – and our understanding of the expected learning outcomes of any bit of work is, as always, absolutely paramount.
Professionally, I’m out of my depth at this point. I speak only as a lay person – and I should therefore probably shut up. But the overall point is that we need to reconceptualise “being where our students are” as “engaging with out students in ways that are meaningful and useful to them” and we need to remember that SL currently only fits the bill for a small proportion – for others it will be blogs or in Facebook or ... and for some it may continue to be in the lecture theatre! :-)
I’m not sure I buy that argument. Are students really in SL already? My minimal experience says, no, they are not – at least not in any significant numbers. Not yet.
That leaves us, as educators (I include myself in that group very loosely!), in an odd position it seems to me. Not only have we got to be convinced that 3-D virtual worlds will allow us to impart learning better than we do now, but we also have to convince our learners that there is sufficient benefit to joining SL as well. A pretty tall order right now – or so it seems to me?
Babbage Linden made the point that only about 1 in 10 of people get SL anyway. I don’t have any reason to doubt this figure. So in a tutor group of 30, only 3 will naturally understand what SL is about – the rest will not get it, some will give up, some will persevere without really liking what they are being asked to do, some will be totally bemused... you get the picture.
Why do so few get it? I can’t answer that question… I do get it, or at least I think I do, but I can’t easily verbalise why (though I have tried) – so I’m at a loss as to why others don’t.
What are the comparable figures for other Learning 2.0 applications? How many people get blogs, or Twitter, or whatever?
I guess that is why applications like Facebook do so well currently – because the percentage of people who get what the application is all about is significantly higher.
What does this mean for educators in SL? Well firstly, it gives us a pretty steep hill to climb. No worries, I enjoy climbing - so I don’t think it is a reason to lose interest entirely, though it might make us modify our expectations a little?
I think it probably also means that we need to give up thinking about SL as an inclusive activity for all students. Instead, we should see it as one option among many – a valid way of completing an assignment, but not the only way. I think that means that we need to think quite hard about what kinds of assignments we give to people. For example, a given bit of group work might be able to be completed by using a face to face discussion, or by collaborating thru blog writing, or by an in-world activity, or by some combination of the above – with the resulting coursework being submitted as a jointly authored ‘traditional’ essay, a set of blog entries, machinima, … whatever. There are, of course, significant implications for assessment – and our understanding of the expected learning outcomes of any bit of work is, as always, absolutely paramount.
Professionally, I’m out of my depth at this point. I speak only as a lay person – and I should therefore probably shut up. But the overall point is that we need to reconceptualise “being where our students are” as “engaging with out students in ways that are meaningful and useful to them” and we need to remember that SL currently only fits the bill for a small proportion – for others it will be blogs or in Facebook or ... and for some it may continue to be in the lecture theatre! :-)
Tuesday, 19 June 2007
Turning a near disaster into a learning experience
The symposium follow-up session on Eduserv Island went very well today, with about 34 people attending.
But it was very nearly a disaster...
I blogged earlier about the PanelPod software that I've been developing to automatically chair the session. Oh boy, how wrong was I!? I dunno how many hours I put into the PanelPod scripting, but I completely mis-read the effect that it would have on the discussion.
Not that the software crashed or anything... but by putting the chairing/queuing system in the way of people's discussion and by making people put up their hands before speaking I completely destroyed and kind of natural flow to the discussion in the room.
To be more positive, it was an interesting experiment. After about 10 minutes of very stifled discussion the talk turned to what was wrong - my queuing system! :-( I turned it off and very quickly the discussion flowed more naturally.
The result was a very interesting debate involving many of the people in the room and covering quite a wide range of topics including how to get learners engaged with SL, what makes it an exciting environment, how assessment might or might not work in SL and so on.
We'll do a longer blog entry on the eFoundations blog in due course. For now, just note that a transcript of the session is available if you want to see what went on.
PanelPod
For the in-world symposium follow-up meeting on Eduserv Island today we are going to use an automated chairing system called PanelPod. This is an extension of my previous work on the MeetingPod, designed to virtually chair a panel session.
The system works pretty much like the MeetingPod, except that it maintains two queues of speakers, audience members and panelists, giving priority to the panelists. To take part in the session, avatars have to be seated, raising their hand (PAGE-UP) to join the queue of people waiting to speak and putting their hand down (PAGE-DOWN) after they have finished (or if they decide to leave the queue before it is their turn).
This is pretty experimental - we have only had one real test of the software so far - so I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
Wednesday, 23 May 2007
Symposium presentations now available
As blogged here, all the streaming media and most of the Powerpoint presentations from the Eduserv Foundation Symposium 2007 are now available on the Web and in-world. Enjoy!
There were 6 presentations, so we have 6 files of mp4 streaming media. I wasn't sure how best to handle this in-world? A single screen with scripting to switch between the different presentations? 6 different screens, one per presentation?
In the end I opted for the latter, on the basis that there might be contention issues over a single screen. I've therefore created six small land parcels alongside the Virtual Congress Centre, attaching one of the streaming files to each.
It should work OK I think.
There were 6 presentations, so we have 6 files of mp4 streaming media. I wasn't sure how best to handle this in-world? A single screen with scripting to switch between the different presentations? 6 different screens, one per presentation?
In the end I opted for the latter, on the basis that there might be contention issues over a single screen. I've therefore created six small land parcels alongside the Virtual Congress Centre, attaching one of the streaming files to each.
It should work OK I think.
Monday, 14 May 2007
Symposium piccies
Pretty tiring end to last week, what with the symposium and all that. Still, it seemed to go pretty well. Lots of very positive blog traffic as a result.
I've just uploaded our SL pictures from the event, taken by Pete as he was MCing the SL activities. I took my digital camera to the RL event but completely forgot to use it until right at the very end :-( There were too many other things going on. Oh well!
Other posts and pictures from the event can be found via Technorati.
I've just uploaded our SL pictures from the event, taken by Pete as he was MCing the SL activities. I took my digital camera to the RL event but completely forgot to use it until right at the very end :-( There were too many other things going on. Oh well!
Other posts and pictures from the event can be found via Technorati.
Wednesday, 9 May 2007
Disappointed of Bath
I have to say I'm disappointed with the standards of behaviour in the digital library community these days. Honestly... no sooner have you built a Virtual Congress Centre to house your annual symposium than people start spraying graffiti and putting up fly-posters all over the place :-(
Oh well, I guess I'll just have to go and find a virtual bucket and mop and clean it off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
