UberNoggin

***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.

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!

I come from a field in which research is largely qualitative and most of the great thinkers are theorists. But, I think living with a social scientist is beginning to have an influence on me. It’s rare for a rhetorician to conduct a true experiment. Most of what we do is observation, ethnography, and theory. We disect and describe.

Sitting next to me, though, on most days, is a social scientist whose work is quantitative, experimental, and more…well, “scientific”! Scientific in the colloquial sense. I certainly woulnd’t argue that qualitative research isn’t scientific. After all, all research begins with a question, applies a method, and then compares the results to the question. That’s the scientific method! But, I find myself slowly leaning toward experiment, toward quantitative methods, and toward a structure of research that makes me feel more in control of what data I get.

I’m rapidly moving toward the end of my dissertation process and, even after writing a few hundred pages, I can’t quite label my work as qualitative or quantitative. It’s descriptive, yes. But, it seems a little more than that. Something a little bit different from the examples of research I studied in my degree.

I’m excited that my own work is morphing and expanding past what I was merely taught to do. I’m excited to see what comes next.

If you’re a Twitter user you’ve probably noticed an influx of new users in the last few weeks. Need proof? Check this out. Twitter has become mainstream with plenty of mentions on national news and other mass media sources. Which is all awesome for the Twitter folks as they shuffle to find a way to become profitable. However, as most hard-core geeks know, when a tool that was considered cool to those “in the know” goes mainstream it often looses some of its punch.

Now, I’m not saying that Twitter isn’t great. Nor am I saying that just because non-geeky folks are using it that it’s time for the nerds to bail. Twitter is way too handy for that. What I am saying is that with a huge influx of users it seems to have lost a bit of its coziness. When a person like me, who is no Scoble or Neil Gaiman or Stephen Frye, gets a couple dozen of new followers a day, you know that something is happening.

So, do you feel like I do? Have you sensed a shift in Twitter? An influx of users? Is it still as cozy as it used to be? Can you control your network well enough to shape your experience?

The audio recording for the session described below can be found here.

Please note that the actual session begins at about the 4:00 minute mark.

__________________

Just a little self-promotion for a talk I’m giving tomorrow. Here’s the description and the instructions for watching the session online through Breeze. The online session is open to the public.
______________________________

There seem to be three camps when it comes to Twitter:

1. Avid Users: “Twitter is cool. I find it handy/interesting/fun/addictive!”
2. Avoiders: “Why should I care that so-and-so wants another coffee, has to take the dog out, has a headache?! I have my own life!”
3. Unaware: “What’s Twitter?”

If you’ve ever tried to explain your Twitter use to someone from group two or three then you know how difficult it is to put your finger right on exactly why Twitter is so handy. I’ve just posted by 6,000th Tweet! It feels like a big milestone but I’m not sure why.

My best answer is that, if you cultivate the right followers and follow the right people, Twitter is an ongoing engaging, informative, and entertaining conversation. It’s like having all your friends take part in your subconcious all day long. Personally, I really dig that. Sure, it’s not for everyone. I understand the arguments of the Avoiders (though I secretly believe it’s because they don’t follow the right people).

So if you’re an Avid Tweeter how do you explain it? I’ve also posted this to Twitter with the hash tag #metatweet so feel free to follow the answers here.

In today’s crazy economy it’s hard enough to figure out the value of a service or product but how much is an idea worth?

The problem with valuing ideas is that you often don’t know how much one is worth until you know what the idea is. But once you’ve heard the idea you’ve already got it. Why would you pay for something you got for free?

It’s a bit like Schrodinger’s cat. Before you’ve heard it, the idea is both good and not good. If you have to pay to open the box to find out if the idea inside is worth it…well, it’s a bit of a gamble.

If you’re somone who makes a living from your ideas how do you lower the risk of paying to “open the box”? How do you assure people that the idea is worth it without giving it away?

Finally, after 18 months of gathering info, installing and uninstalling software, creating account after account…I’ve finished the virtual worlds facet chart. It’s based on the facets I uncovered in my dissertation research that you can read more about HERE. There are many worlds that aren’t included because…well…I had to stop somewhere.

If you check out the chart and find any errors please let me know.

Meanwhile, tune in soon for more info about how the chart can be used!