Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent anyone else's view in any way, including those of my employer.
© Copyright 2009
The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent anyone else's view in any way, including those of my employer.
© Copyright 2009
***Disclaimer: This post is NOT intended as a slight to SL, the great projects built there, nor the innovative thinking going on around and inside SL. It’s meant to be a discussion only. Also, pardon the length.***
Phew! I don’t normally put a disclaimer in front of a post but I feel it’s necessary on this one. Stay with me and you’ll understand why.
A few of you may have followed along with yesterday’s debate at ITC where our own Chris “Fleep” Collins did a bang-up job of representing the many reasons why folks like those on the list (over 5,000) believe that SL is an important tool for education. If you weren’t able to follow along see Bryan Alexander’s great notes from the event here: http://b2e.nitle.org/index.php/2009/02/22/conference_debate_are_virtual_worlds_are
As I followed the debate and the reactions from SL-Ed evangelists my brain started throbbing with ideas. When I saw reports that, after the debate, the folks in the audience who thought SL was “stupid” increased in numbers rather than decreased even with Fleep’s excellent arguments…well, I started to wonder what we’re all arguing for.
If you know me, you know I’ve been a staunch advocate of SL for a very long time and an advocate for student-centered pedagogy for even longer. I’ve made the case for SL on dozens of campuses. I’ve written many articles to make the argument that this kind of teaching and learning is the way of the future. However, after yesterday’s event I’m thinking that the argument is focused on the wrong place. I wonder if we’re fighting a losing fight if we only argue for SL. Or, if we lead an argument about learning reform with an SL argument.
We all know the points against SL (hardware, learning curve etc) and yet we feel it’s worth it, worth solving those problems. But take, for example, a comparison between SL and MetaPlace as seen below.
|
World |
Second Life |
MetaPlace |
|
Affordances |
|
|
|
Custom avatars |
Fully custom |
Limited custom |
|
UGC (objects) |
Building tools |
Building tools |
|
UGC (scripts) |
Supported |
supported |
|
Space |
Purchase, rent |
Free, unlimited for every user |
|
Presence |
yes |
yes |
|
Communication |
Voice, text |
text |
|
Content imbedding |
Streaming media |
Web, media, audio |
|
Crowd limits |
40-100 |
unlimited |
|
Control over space |
Yes |
yes |
|
Games and simulations |
Possible |
possible |
|
Hardware requirements |
Mid-high |
Low-mid |
|
Software |
Download/install |
Web-based |
|
Learning curve |
Mid-steep |
Low-mid |
It’s pretty evident that the affordances that we find useful in SL are also largely available in MetaPlace with smaller investment, increased accessibility, and a shallower learning curve. So why do we argue for SL? I’m NOT suggesting that we all bail from SL and move to MetaPlace. I’m arguing that perhaps our focus may have become to narrow in some situations. That the time we all have invested in SL may blind us to the larger implications and a larger, more successful argument.
I wonder if the argument should be that learning practices need to change. It’s not any one tool that will do this. It’s people like the ones on this list who have seen that there are alternatives to the “sage on the stage” and that it can work!
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m in no way suggesting that the majority of us don’t do this. That we aren’t out there arguing for larger change rather than just arguing for SL. I KNOW we are. But yesterday’s debate and the audience reaction proves that, at least in limited circles, the argument is being misinterpreted as a “Pro-SL” argument rather than a “Pro-learning” argument. How can we change the way the argument is being percieved to make it harder to dismiss so easily as saying that “SL is the second coming of stupid”? After all, NO ONE in education would dare say that student-centered, active learning was “stupid”.
Let’s talk about it!
More Options ...
Categories
Tag Cloud
Blog RSS
Comments RSS
Void « Default
Life 
Earth 
Wind 
Water 
Fire Light 
Previous 
Next 
Comment Meta:
Last 50 Posts
Back
Face facts. SL is like “kool aid” to those who have embraced it with both (virtual) hands AND feet. And its “value” to those people is not so much in the LEARNING that they are able to foster in others (that is, in the educational potential), but rather in the inspiration it generates for them (and the helluva-good-time they are having). Rather than asking others to drink the Kool Aid, SL enthusiasts need to realize that it REPRESENTS something: teacher renewal, technological tools as spaces for play, intense community online. And SL is great for some things (learning about SL…certain software tools…foreign language learning). But it ain’t the cat’s pajamas of P-12 learning that many of us once thought, for all sorts of reasons (not least of which is the incredible way that kids are kept out…and teens segregated). It requires real sophistication to take one’s own enthusiasm and channel it towards more general values. It’s not the Kool Aid….it’s the way that drink helps us see possibilities.
(Thanks for reminding us–and yourself–Sarah!)
Alas,
It is about the right time in the SLED growth curve that this conversation happens. Probably past time. As a SL evangelist, I have found that being on the bleeding edge does eventually leave you with little more than less blood. It is time for those who we evangelize too need to “virulize” our positions so as to make VLE’s more mainstream. And you and our other colleagues publishing the research on SL need to get more papers out there with some hardcore research to back up what is still relatively subjective and anecdotal in nature. There are still too few of you (us) pushing for MUVE’s in education.
Conversely, you are right about student-centered active learning has become far more common place with the growth of the virtual classroom. We may not have inspired as radical a change as we would like, but there certainly is a new look/feel to 21 century learning. There is some credit to be taken there by this community.
I think your Metaplace comparison hurt your argument a bit, at least it did for me. Why in this case did you choose not to use your own VW facets for comparison? Doing so may have presented a different perspective.
I am an advocate of Metaplace principles (and btw I believe as Beta testers we are under an obligation of limited disclosure), however I’d argue that many people who read this have not tried Metaplace yet, nor have they attempted to duplicate what they have in SL in Metaplace and this is likely to offer a more meaningful comparison versus a features list.
If such a comparison could be made, I’d argue that the educational community should develop it’s own faceted model, not for feature comparison per se, but to highlight universal needs as well as benefits and their attendant priorities. Comparing features at this point seems a bit premature unless there is a method for evaluation, and that evaluation should be grounded in improving the methods by which we teach – ideally aligned with how we learn.
So then, how is SL aligned with how we learn?
Just my $0.02.
I am interested in alternatives to SL. I have always been supportive of open source tools. I am not really interested in SL as a platform. SL is not lab, people, hardware, software, or finance friendly. But I do not use SL for the tools. I use it for the community. The people in SL have created the community, not Linden Labs or software. My problem in the past with alternatives such as There was that it was much like Gertrude Stein’s Oakland, there was no there there. I need organizations like Community Colleges in Second Life. I know they can happen in other worlds but I do not have time to reinvent that wheel. I like the open standards model. It is one this to argue that SL may not be the platform in a couple of years, but Metaplace is in beta and no one has any idea of what it will look like in a couple of years.
Craig, you make a great point! I think I should have clarified my use of Metaplace as an example. I compared the two to show that there’s not much difference in their affordances when it comes to the features that we most often point to in SL as being conducive to education. I wanted the example to make it clear that it’s not the tool we’re really talking about. It’s what the tools let us do.
I didn’t use my own facets because they’re intended for classification not to point to learning affordances but both SL and Metaplace are on my chart which is linked to in a previous post if anyone wants to take a look!
Intellagirl
Geoff has a great point… it’s only going to get easier for educators to access virtual worlds LIKE Second Life, but the SLED community is a HUGE advantage. Until something like that develops across the board (VWED?), Second Life will be on top of the virtual classroom simply because of the resources developed by those in it.
I’ll be keeping an eye on Metaplace simply because I’m interested in seeing what they do with Flash, but I don’t see them stealing SL’s crown anytime soon.
“I’d argue that the educational community should develop it’s own faceted model, not for feature comparison per se, but to highlight universal needs as well as benefits and their attendant priorities.”
The idea that there is an educational community with universal needs is a bit problematic for me, even more so when it’s in response to debates about the efficacy of educational technologies. These are hammer-seeking-nail kinds of discourses even when they’re elevated.
It’s challenging but important that, in our conversational Venn diagrams, we’re able articulate the circles of what we mean. We (this educational community) are diverse in our experiences and disciplines; we ourselves are Venned.
.
I like models for articulation; and damn this one is another Venn! You’d think I was a Venn Diagram evangelist
Seriously …this is one of the many ways I’d like to frame discussions of 3D virtual environments for education and learning.
http://www.tpck.org/tpck/index.php?title=Main_Page
I think you make some excellent points Sarah. I am confident that the ‘multi-purposes’ of SL make it valuable. I play FPS for fun, and am looking at SL for two things – connecting with other educators (who live elsewhere); and spending time ‘with’ my distance students (who live elsewhere). I have the former well in train, but the latter is yet to come. I am sure that my time achieving the former will make the latter all the richer.
…Geoff
Sorry I’m so late with this response…
Ever since the text based MUDs of the 1980’s and 1990s through the graphical MUVEs of today, the virtual environment (regardless of which one is being used) has promoted a collaborative learning environment catering to constructivist and constructionist pedagogies. It provides many benefits conducive to REAL learning, such as:
-Feedback from others
-Positive reinforcement
-Teaching one another other
-Collaborating on mutual projects – the results are often better than individually
-Social success and social compatibility are determined by different factors online versus face to face.
-Inseparability of the social and intellectual activity going on.
-The collaboration takes place in the context of a social network
So I think the argument should be focused more toward the virtual learning space, with SL being an effective example. SL can be used as a model to create other environments which might suit more specific needs of a school.
And I agree that one of the major factors that makes SL such a fine example is the professional learning network that has developed, on which so many of us rely. Its a perfect example of the effectiveness of a virtual learning environment.
Amy
I am interested in alternatives to SL. I have always been supportive of open source tools. I am not really interested in SL as a platform. SL is not lab, people, hardware, software, or finance friendly. But I do not use SL for the tools. I use it for the community. The people in SL have created the community, not Linden Labs or software. My problem in the past with alternatives such as There was that it was much like Gertrude Stein’s Oakland, there was no there there. I need organizations like Community Colleges in Second Life. I know they can happen in other worlds but I do not have time to reinvent that wheel. I like the open standards model. It is one this to argue that SL may not be the platform in a couple of years, but Metaplace is in beta and no one has any idea of what it will look like in a couple of years.