pedagogical practices in a virtual world: an

0 downloads 0 Views 4MB Size Report
your advice, guidance, and support, I would not be the individual I am today. ... unstructured interviews were conducted with SL course instructors and students. ..... APPENDIX B: SECOND LIFE CONTINUING EDUCATION COURSE ..... players from outside were able to log on to the system between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. ...
PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICES IN A VIRTUAL WORLD: AN ETHNOGRAPHIC AND DISCOURSE ANALYSIS APPROACH

Sharon M. Stoerger

Submitted to the faculty of the University Graduate School in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Library and Information Science Indiana University March 2010

UMI Number: 3408098

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3408098 Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

Accepted by the Graduate Faculty, Indiana University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

______________________________ Susan C. Herring, Ph.D. Doctoral Committee: ______________________________ Howard Rosenbaum, Ph.D.

______________________________ Curt Bonk, Ph.D.

____________________________ Noriko Hara, Ph.D.

February 10, 2010

ii

© 2010 Sharon M. Stoerger ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

iii

Acknowledgments Thank you to the following people who have traveled with me on my academic journey. Without your advice, guidance, and support, I would not be the individual I am today. My father, Melvin Stoerger, for advising me throughout my years as a student to “bite the bullet.” My mother, Doris Stoerger, for thinking my research trajectory was exciting. While it remains etched in my memories, I continue to miss her smile and nod thing. I wish she could have been with us on this path a little longer. My brothers, Mark and Greg, for always asking when I was going to finish this degree. My aunt, Joan Curtis, for understanding my academic life, even when I was not sure I did. The students and instructors of the Second Life courses for allowing me access into the educational workings of virtual worlds. The Second Life course coordinator for providing alternatives and assistance when data collection challenges arose. A special thank you to my committee members: Dr. Susan Herring for guiding me in using discourse analysis approaches to understand the student-instructor interactions that take place in new media environments. Dr. Howard Rosenbaum for offering to talk about academic life any time. Dr. Curt Bonk for inspiring me as a student and as an instructor. Dr. Noriko Hara for showing me that the boundaries of academic disciplines are fluid. And most of all, to Bernie Sloan, for being with me every step of the way!!!

“We live in a forest of family trees, and the branches reach out in complicated paths over unexpectedly long distances.” – Michael Holroyd

iv

Sharon M. Stoerger PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICES IN A VIRTUAL WORLD: AN ETHNOGRAPHIC AND DISCOURSE ANALYSIS APPROACH The purpose of this dissertation is to examine teaching and learning in virtual worlds such as Second Life (SL). This research is designed to address the following questions: What are the pedagogical practices in virtual worlds? What are the strengths and weaknesses of these practices? How do these practices change at different course levels? How do the pedagogical practices affect the student-instructor interactions that take place in SL? Further, how do the technological affordances, or the actions individuals can perform in SL, affect the studentinstructor interactions that take place in that virtual world? This research employed ethnographic and discourse analysis methods to investigate the pedagogical practices in the virtual world SL. Also of interest were the technological affordances and the ways in which they influence student-instructor interactions in SL. This research analyzed synchronous text chat and observational data collected from SL continuing education courses at the beginner, intermediate, and advanced levels. To support or refute these findings, unstructured interviews were conducted with SL course instructors and students. Virtual worlds may support student-centered learning, yet this study found that the SL teaching and learning did not differ dramatically from the teacher-centered, physical world classroom. In sessions involving active learning tasks, however, the students’ level of participation and use of cognitive messages increased. Compared to their instructors, the students participating in these activities also contributed longer words to the discussion. Thus, there is evidence that learning did occur in SL, particularly when the instructors integrated studentcentered practices into their teacher-centered course structure.

v

In general, the SL instructors relied heavily upon teacher-centered methods. However, the results of this study suggest that the use of student-centered approaches in virtual world – ones that draw from constructivist epistemologies – have the potential to create a more effective learning situation for the students. Nonetheless, making the shift away from behaviorist ideals that remain prevalent in today’s physical classroom is difficult, even when the instructors embrace the technology and its affordances.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW OF VIRTUAL WORLDS ...................................... 6 A Brief History of MUDs............................................................................................................ 6 Educational Uses of MUDs ......................................................................................................... 7 Second Life ............................................................................................................................... 11 Educational Uses of Second Life .............................................................................................. 14 CHAPTER THREE: TECHNOLOGICAL AFFORDANCES AND SECOND LIFE ................ 21 Affordances and Abilities.......................................................................................................... 21 Affordances and Constraints of Second Life ............................................................................ 22 Synchronous Educational Chat and Second Life ...................................................................... 26 CHAPTER FOUR: REVIEW OF THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ....................................... 31 Teacher-centered Learning Environments ................................................................................ 32 Student-centered Learning Environments ................................................................................. 36 Problem Statement .................................................................................................................... 41 CHAPTER FIVE: METHOD ....................................................................................................... 43 Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 43 Field Site ................................................................................................................................... 46 Course Sampling ....................................................................................................................... 47 Participants ................................................................................................................................ 50 Specific Methods of Data Collection ........................................................................................ 51 Field Observations ................................................................................................................. 51 Unstructured Interviews ........................................................................................................ 54 Chat Data ............................................................................................................................... 58 Data Analysis......................................................................................................................... 63 Pilot Study of Data Analysis Methods ...................................................................................... 65 Dissertation Study Analysis .................................................................................................. 67 Coding Process, Reliability, and Validity ............................................................................. 67 CHAPTER SIX: FINDINGS ........................................................................................................ 70 SL Pedagogical Practices: Ethnographic Findings .................................................................... 70 Beginner Course: Observations ............................................................................................. 70 Intermediate Course: Observations ....................................................................................... 72 Advanced Course: Observations ........................................................................................... 75 SL Student-instructor Interactions: Discourse Analysis Findings ............................................ 77 Participation Levels ............................................................................................................... 77 Average Message and Word Length ..................................................................................... 87 Functional Moves .................................................................................................................. 91 CHAPTER SEVEN: DISCUSSION ........................................................................................... 106 Overview of Findings .............................................................................................................. 106

Research Question 1 ............................................................................................................ 106 Research Question 2 ............................................................................................................ 118 Research Question 3 ............................................................................................................ 136 Research Question 4 ............................................................................................................ 142 Research Question 5 ............................................................................................................ 149 CHAPTER EIGHT: CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 158 Implications ............................................................................................................................. 164 Recommendations for First Time SL Instructors .................................................................... 167 Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 172 Directions for Further Research .............................................................................................. 177 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 181 APPENDIX A: SECOND LIFE EDUCATIONAL SPACES .................................................... 206 APPENDIX B: SECOND LIFE CONTINUING EDUCATION COURSE DESCRIPTIONS . 210 APPENDIX C: UNSTRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR SECOND LIFE STUDENTS ................................................................................................................................ 212 APPENDIX D: UNSTRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR SECOND LIFE INSTRUCTORS ......................................................................................................................... 213 APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS ........................................................................ 214 APPENDIX F: FUNCTIONAL MOVE CODING SCHEME AND EXAMPLES.................... 215 APPENDIX G: AGGREGATE STUDENT AND INSTRUCTOR PARTICIPATION LEVELS BY NUMBER AND PERCENT ................................................................................................ 216 APPENDIX H: AGGREGATE STUDENT AND INSTRUCTOR WORD COUNTS BY NUMBER AND PERCENT ....................................................................................................... 217 APPENDIX I: AGGREGATE STUDENT AND INSTRUCTOR CHARACTER COUNTS BY NUMBER AND PERCENT ....................................................................................................... 218 APPENDIX J: AGGREGATE STUDENT AND INSTRUCTOR FUNCTIONAL MOVES BY NUMBER AND PERCENT ....................................................................................................... 219 APPENDIX K: SECOND LIFE INSTRUCTIONAL TOOLS .................................................. 223 APPENDIX L: SECOND LIFE AVATAR TRANSFORMATIONS ........................................ 226 CURRICULUM VITAE FOR SHARON M. STOERGER ....................................................... 227

ii

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Second Life Study Course Information ......................................................................... 48 Table 2. Data Collection and Analysis ........................................................................................ 65 Table 3. Student-instructor Interaction: Example ......................................................................... 72 Table 4. Instructor Posting Averages ............................................................................................ 79 Table 5. Student Posting Averages .............................................................................................. 80 Table 6. Instructor Question: Example ........................................................................................ 83 Table 7. Instructor and Student Questions by Course and Session …...…………………………85 Table 8. Student Question: Example ............................................................................................ 86 Table 9. Average Message and Word Length by Session and Level............................................ 89 Table 10. Cognitive Functional Moves: Interaction Example ...................................................... 91 Table 11. Logistical Functional Moves: Interaction Example …………………………………..92 Table 12. Social Functional Moves: Interaction Example ………………………………………92 Table 13. Technical Functional Moves: Interaction Example …..………………………………92 Table 14. Second Life Pedagogical Practices ………………………………...………………..107 Table 15. Second Life Instructional Tools Categories …………………………………………109 Table 16. Strengths and Weaknesses of Second Life Pedagogical Practices …...……………..120 Table 17. Pedagogical Practices at the Beginner, Intermediate, and Advanced Levels ……….139 Table 18. Second Life Pedagogical Practices and Student-Instructor Interactions …...……….143 Table 19. Second Life Affordances ...………………………………………………………….152 Table 20. Basic Second Life Technology Skills ……………………………………………….168 Table 21. Constructing Student-centered Learning Experiences ………………………………170

iii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Instructor Participation Levels ...................................................................................... 78 Figure 2. Student Participation Levels…....................... ........................................................ .......78 Figure 3. Average Message and Word Length: Instructors .......................................................... 88 Figure 4. Average Message and Word Length: Students ............................................................. 88 Figure 5. Beginner Course Functional Moves: Session 1 ............................................................. 93 Figure 6. Beginner Course Functional Moves: Session 2 ............................................................. 93 Figure 7. Beginner Course Functional Moves: Session 3 ............................................................. 94 Figure 8. Beginner Course Functional Moves: Session 4 ............................................................. 94 Figure 9. Intermediate Functional Moves: Session 1.................................................................... 96 Figure 10. Intermediate Functional Moves: Session 2.................................................................. 96 Figure 11. Intermediate Functional Moves: Session 3.................................................................. 97 Figure 12. Intermediate Functional Moves: Session 4.................................................................. 97 Figure 13. Advanced Functional Moves: Session 1...................................................................... 98 Figure 14. Advanced Functional Moves: Session 2 …………………………………………..... 99 Figure 15. Advanced Functional Moves: Session 3 ………………………………...………….. 99 Figure 16. Advanced Functional Moves: Session 4 …………………………………................. 99 Figure 17. Functional Moves by Instructor: Session 1.................................... ................. ..........101 Figure 18. Functional Moves by Instructor: Session 2 ............................................................... 101 Figure 19. Functional Moves by Instructor: Session 3 ............................................................... 101 Figure 20. Functional Moves by Instructor: Session 4 ............................................................... 102 Figure 21. Functional Moves by Students: Session 1 ................................................................ 103 Figure 22. Functional Moves by Students: Session 2 ................................................................ 103

iv

Figure 23. Functional Moves by Students: Session 3 ................................................................ 104 Figure 24. Functional Moves by Students: Session 4 ................................................................ 104

v

Chapter One: Background CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND In today’s participatory learning age that embraces flexible and informal connections, tech-savvy students are content producers, as well as consumers (Brown & Adler, 2008). At the same time, educators such as Michael Wesch (2008, 2009) suggest that students suffer from a “crisis of significance,” in that they do not consider what they learn to be relevant outside the classroom. For this reason, some technology proponents claim that young people want more active learning approaches. In an attempt to make the learning process more attractive to students, educators are exploring the use of virtual worlds. Because virtual worlds support social and participatory learning activities, some scholars claim that these technology-enhanced spaces have the potential to alter the state of education (Ziegler, 2007). Typically, schools have adopted a teacher-centered approach, with practices that adhere to behaviorist notions. Behaviorism, with its emphasis on behavior management, emphasizes lower-order thinking skills such as memorization and recall; higher-order thinking skills that involve the synthesis and analysis of content are difficult to teach using the behaviorism format. However, recent technological developments have generated renewed interest in more studentcentered theories, such as constructivism. The constructivist epistemology suggests that the physical world contains no meaning per se; rather, individuals and cultures impose meaning on the world. In terms of educational practices, constructivism favors the process as opposed to the end result. Situated learning that takes place in authentic settings and guided discovery are examples of activities that support constructivist ideals. Motivated by this view, educators, students, and software developers are exploring virtual worlds for teaching and learning purposes.

1

Chapter One: Background New technologies are considered a way to make traditional teaching and learning approaches more efficient. In fact, the use of technology in an educational setting is what Shils (2006) considers an “anti-traditional tradition” – an impulse that is superior to the traditional one it is replacing (Bowers, 2000). Technologists argue that these digital environments are studentcentered and support a constructivist learning approach. In addition, many new technologies, including virtual worlds, are designed to encourage participation and social interactions. Stated another way, virtual worlds enable students to create their own knowledge. However, all learning utilizes technology, whether it involves pencil and paper or a chalkboard or a computer (e.g., Cousin, 2005; Wedemeyer, 1981). Predictions of innovative uses of technology in educational settings are pervasive, yet these uses have typically resulted in logistical rather than pedagogical changes (Collis & Moonen, 2008). Some scholars also suggest that a constructivist approach may not work for all learners in virtual worlds. For instance, there is a steep learning curve in Second Life (SL); there are numerous skills to learn and the tools can be cumbersome to use. Salt, Atkins, and Blackall (2008) suggest that a more teacher-centered approach that adheres, at least in part, to behaviorist beliefs may be needed to assist students who are new to SL. For students who have not acquired a core set of competencies, including the basics, such as learning to navigate the SL environment and communicating with others inworld, a constructivist approach alone may undermine the educational potential of virtual worlds and may not be appropriate (Jonassen, Mayes, & McAleese, 1993; Salt et al., 2008). Unguided novices may lack the schemas needed to investigate new information and develop knowledge (e.g., Jonassen, Mayes, & McAleese, 1993; Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). However, Bonk and Cunningham (1998) point out that there is a lack of pedagogical guidance for teachers who wish to integrate technologies into the curriculum, which can be

2

Chapter One: Background frustrating and discouraging. At present, it seems that many online learning environments reproduce physical world patterns and dominant tendencies of the culture. As Cousin (2005) observed in her assessment of virtual learning environments (VLEs), many electronic images and terms mimic those found in the physical academic world. For example, the SL spaces included in the present study are built around metaphors of a college campus – the sessions take place in an auditorium, PowerPoint-like slides appear on a large, white screen on stage, and there is even a library staffed with reference librarians to assist students with their information needs. Overall, the adoption of these worlds and their integration into the curriculum has been done with little understanding of the environments themselves. Libraries play a central role in the pedagogical uses of virtual environments for learning and are at the forefront of the information literacy movement (Alexander, 2008). First, librarians are in the business of providing services to members of their communities. Not surprisingly, librarians are pioneers in providing information services to the visitors of virtual spaces. Also, these early adopters educate others about the potential of teaching and learning in-world. In general, creating a library in SL or other virtual worlds is one way to reach out to, and meet the needs of, members of that community (Erdman, 2007). Peter Brantley (2007), the Executive Director of the Digital Library Federation, believes that virtual worlds are not only different from other technologies librarians may use, but they also “present a completely new paradigm for information creation and interaction” (n.p.). Erdman (2007) elaborates that what makes reference services in SL, for example, different from

3

Chapter One: Background other virtual reference services is that the avatar 1 representation gives “a face to a virtual librarian who can gesture and walk the users to the resources found in-world” (p. 35). Schools of library and information science and library-related professional organizations are establishing a presence in virtual worlds, as well. Jeremy Kemp and his colleagues at the School of Library and Information Science at San Jose State University (SJSU) began their Second Life initiative in 2006 and launched their island publicly in February 2007. To help support students in-world, the SJSU program is implementing a peer mentor program (Kemp, 2007). Professional organizations such as the American Library Association (ALA) also have acknowledged this move toward alternative service formats. In July 2007, ALA sponsored its first “Gaming, Learning, and Libraries Symposium” in Chicago, Illinois. Numerous sessions were related to library and educational initiatives that are taking place in SL. Further, this organization has received a $1 million grant from the Verizon Foundation to study the impact of games on education and literacy skills (Kuzyk, 2008). Much of the literature on educational technologies argues that schools and institutions of higher learning must undergo a transformation in order to survive. At the end of the 19th century, many individuals were working in factories. These individuals needed to learn basic skills and simple facts to work in these industrial jobs. Thus, the factory model of education was created. Emerging technologies are changing the ways in which information and knowledge are distributed within society. Historically, however, the educational community has been slow to change (Rainie & Hitlin, 2005; Squire, 2006). At present, some scholars suggest that in order for technology to be pedagogically effective in educational settings, educators need to recognize that the factory model of education is no longer effective (e.g., Bonk & Cunningham, 1998). 1

The word “avatar” is derived from the Sanskrit word Avatara, which means the fall of a deity to Earth. In graphical virtual worlds, the avatar is the computer representation of the physical world user. The word avatar is sometimes shortened to “avie” or “av” (http://secondedition.wordpress.com/sl-glossary/).

4

Chapter One: Background However, Cousin (2005) asserts that due to the similarities between the physical and virtual worlds, instructors never need to abandon traditional learning. Moreover, institutions and instructors may appropriate new media in ways that tend to manage and restrain their riskier aspects. In such cases, this limits the educational potential of the technology as a learning environment. Further, in these environments, the borders created by the computer are established and maintained by the instructor (Selfe & Selfe, 1994): While the SL courses included in this study attract individuals from around the world, for example, English is commonly used by the SL course participants. The default SL interface is displayed in English, as well. Also, terms such as inventory, folders, and files, just to name a few, are associated with the corporate world. The values represented in the interface alone may support some students, while marginalizing and creating barriers for others. According to the literature, more research is needed to elucidate the ways students and instructors use virtual worlds. The present study seeks to broaden the understanding of how virtual worlds such as SL are used for educational purposes at different learning levels – beginner, intermediate, and advanced. In addition, this research expands upon the current investigations of education in SL, many of which are based primarily on casual observations and student self-reports, by empirically assessing teaching and learning activities using a discourse analysis approach. While text chat and instant messaging (IM) are frequently used communication modes in SL, the computer-mediated communication that takes place as a result of educational initiatives in SL is relatively undescribed at this time.

5

Chapter Two: Literature Review of Virtual Worlds CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW OF VIRTUAL WORLDS A Brief History of MUDs The design of today’s three-dimensional, graphical virtual worlds was influenced by textbased Multi-User Dungeons (MUDs). 2 The first MUD was written by Roy Trubshaw in the autumn of 1978, and Richard Bartle joined in on the process that eventually became the finished MUD product (Bartle, 1999). This role-playing adventure game set in a fantasy universe – an artifact of the hacker culture – was initially populated primarily by students at Essex University in the UK; however, as time wore on and more external lines to the DEC-10 3 were established, this changed (Bartle, 1999). Even though the MUD resided on equipment housed at Essex, players from outside were able to log on to the system between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. on weekday mornings or 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m. on weekends. The MUD was eventually licensed to CompuServe under the name British Legends. Most MUDs were composed of several rooms; all conversations occurred in a communal space and were “heard” by everyone in the room, unless the whisper or page commands were used. Individuals navigated the MUD space through “characters” that spoke and acted through typed text commands. MUDs also allowed a user to create content, control her characters, and “be, literally, anything she can type” (Thomas & Brown, 2007, p. 152). While the MUDs of the 1970s were set in fantasy worlds and were focused on role-playing activities, variations on the genre emerged starting in the late 1980s (Reid, 1994). In 1989, James Aspnes, who at that time was a graduate student at Carnegie Mellon University, removed the battle components to create a modifiable space where participants could interact socially with each other. LambdaMOO,

2

MUDs, or text-based virtual reality environments, are also referred to as Multi-User Domains and Multi-User Dimensions. A MOO (MUD Object Oriented), which is discussed later in this section, is a type of text-based multiuser game that allows users to perform object oriented programming. 3 A DEC-10 is a time-sharing mainframe computer model manufactured by the Digital Equipment Corporation.

6

Chapter Two: Literature Review of Virtual Worlds founded in 1990 by Pavel Curtis who was then a member of the research staff at Xerox Park, is the largest and best-known example of a social MUD.

Educational Uses of MUDs By the early 1990s, educators such as Amy Bruckman, Cynthia Haynes, and Teri Fanderclai began to investigate ways to make learning enjoyable by using MUDs for teaching, learning, and scholarly collaboration. Amy Bruckman, who started the MediaMOO research project while at The MIT Media Lab, was one of the first to show that these gaming and chatting spaces could be used for serious purposes. A primary feature of MUDs was that although individuals were geographically dispersed, they were able to come together to collaborate in a common space. In these shared rooms, people met, socialized, and created content entirely by text. Further, in MUD environments, social interactions were necessary; MUDding alone was pointless (Bruckman, 1998). Or, stated another way, “The best sorts of interactions occur when people participate in a shared activity and not just a shared context” (Bruckman & Resnick, 1995, n.p.). Because the MUD content was created by its users, they were able to use simple programming commands to create persistent artifacts that were meaningful to them. This is not to say that there was continuity or a smooth design to the space; there was not. As one visitor commented, MediaMOO was “a multicultural mess” (Bruckman & Resnick, 1995, n.p.). Nonetheless, the user contributions were a vital component of the MediaMOO environment. Not only were the users consumers of the content, but they were producers of it. The MediaMOO concept was later expanded by Bruckman in a MUD for children named “MOOSE Crossing” (MOOSE stands for MOO Scripting Environment). This interactive

7

Chapter Two: Literature Review of Virtual Worlds learning environment was designed to appeal to young people who were primarily between the ages of 8 and 13. MOOSE Crossing enabled children to practice their creative writing skills while learning basic object-oriented programming skills. Further, MOOSE Crossing participants were able to interact with children from around the globe. For some, the community itself and the support its members provided were motivating. Peer tutoring was another powerful learning approach, in that it could provide positive reinforcement for the tutor and the tutee. It also equalized the power relationship, in that age and social status were less relevant in the MUD environment. In MOOSE Crossing, for example, it was not uncommon for the children to tutor the adults. As Bruckman (1998) emphasized, “Sometimes the best teachers are not experts but learners only one step ahead of you who are excited about sharing what they themselves just learned” (p. 65). MUDs had the potential to be effective teaching and learning spaces for college students, as well. In contrast to the physical institution, the MUD university was not confined within the walls of a classroom, the boundaries of a university, or the even the borders of a country. In some cases, students and teachers in the virtual classroom never met each other face-to-face. Because this was a text-based environment where individuals communicated through writing, it was an ideal place to learn about writing. In addition, participants were able to multitask and have multichannel conversations. MUDs were also places for self-directed learning that blended together work and play (Fanderclai, 1995). While this often appeared to be a chaotic approach to learning, there were times when it was effective (Fanderclai, 1995, 1996). MUDs were also claimed to disrupt the hierarchy of the physical classroom, allowing students to take control of their own learning and become more independent. In the MUD, Fanderclai’s composition students had to work out their own methods and schedules for meeting goals. In addition, the

8

Chapter Two: Literature Review of Virtual Worlds students were responsible to people outside their own on-site classes, which appeared to contribute to their willingness to work through difficulties. Although scholars noted benefits to educational initiatives in MUDs, there were issues and concerns that complicated the teaching and learning process. First, these environments were not immune from real-life problems. Plagiarism, flaming, and harassment found their way into online spaces. Thus, teaching in these virtual, real-time environments could be complex. Further, teachers were encouraged to be prepared to deal with interruptions and disruptions during class, such as “drive-by shoutings” (Haynes & Holmevik, 1998, p. 6). There was a certain element of anonymity in MUDs, which may have encouraged this type of inappropriate behavior. However, as Haynes (1998) discovered, informing students that their identity is accessible on command could serve as a deterrent. While MUDs enabled educators to transgress the boundaries of traditional education, most virtual educational spaces simply replicated a physical classroom model (Haynes, 1998). According to Bruckman (1998), the use of educational technologies that enable a more studentcentered approach has not resulted in dramatic changes to the teaching or learning process; rather, the opposite has occurred – these technologies tend to be used in very unoriginal and instructionist ways. Further, the move toward innovative educational practices has not been very effective, because “it is always easier to adopt a new gadget than to adopt a new philosophy” (Fanderclai, 1996, p. 239). MUDs were designed to be interactive spaces where the “sage on the stage” lecture model would be counterproductive (Fanderclai, 1996). Yet, teachers in these virtual spaces often assigned a set of rote tasks for students to complete, rather than allowing students to design their own meaningful projects (Bruckman, 1998; Fanderclai, 1996).

9

Chapter Two: Literature Review of Virtual Worlds Also, students may have mixed reactions to a MUD: “Some will find it fun, some will be confused, some will be indifferent, and some will find it difficult, if not pointless” (Haynes, 1998, p. 165). In some cases, it was difficult to determine whether student collaborations were successful, because the MUD environment was so new and unfamiliar (Fanderclai, 1996). There was a learning curve, and simply navigating the space was challenging for some individuals. Moreover, the polysynchronous communication may have caused difficulties for MUD participants. For instance, individuals did not log in at the same speed, and the “complex dance of braided conversations between and among the students…and the instructor” (p. 234) that Jenkins (2004) describes could make it difficult to decipher the conversation in synchronous computer-mediated communication spaces such as MUDs (Herring, 1999; Schweller, 1998). Individuals also had to focus their attention on multiple activities at the same time. In addition, some scholars complained that the MUD environment favored fast typists (Fanderclai, 1996). Even so, the fact that the text conversations were recorded was a positive feature, because it allowed students to reflect upon their experience later. As the discussion presented in this section suggests, there is evidence that educational MUDs were successful at encouraging students to take responsibility for their learning and to engage in collaborative activities, at least in some cases. However, MUDs had a limited life span. This was true even of popular spaces such as LambdaMOO and MediaMOO. Moreover, educational MUDs tended to replicate traditional teaching models rather than move beyond them. Today, the descendents of MUDs are virtual worlds, visually and textually rich computerbased simulated environments intended for their users to inhabit and interact with through digital characters or avatars. While a voice option is available in many virtual worlds, many residents

10

Chapter Two: Literature Review of Virtual Worlds still communicate with others using synchronous text chat. One virtual world that has caught the attention of many individuals, including educators, is Second Life.

Second Life In a chapter on virtual realities, McLellan (2004) adopts a broad definition of the term virtual worlds, using it to describe environments ranging from immersive spaces to augmented reality to virtual worlds used in educational settings. Others use the term virtual world to refer to a computer-based simulated environment intended for its users to inhabit and interact in through avatars (Electric Sheep Company, n.d.). The current three-dimensional virtual worlds are visually rich spaces; however, the overall concept dates back to text-based MUD environments. Indeed, Kalay (2004) and Pearce (2004) refer to the new iteration of virtual worlds as graphical MUDs. Both types of environments also have ties to Neal Stephenson’s concept of a metaverse 4 that he describes in the popular 1992 cyberspace novel, Snow Crash. Moreover, graphical virtual worlds are similar to MUDs, in that both kinds of environments are user extensible. Stated another way, individuals creatively build and shape the environment. In MUDs, text was used to describe and create the virtual world; in current virtual spaces, the players are authors or producers of both graphical and textual content. Currently, there are an increasing number of virtual worlds to explore, yet Second Life (SL) continues to attract attention from media outlets, corporations, and educators, just to name a few. SL was released to the public by Linden Lab in 2003 and is the largest three-dimensional virtual world (EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative, 2008). Basic membership is free, and individuals from around the world create SL accounts. According to Pathfinder Linden (2008), over 60% of 4

The metaverse Stephenson describes in Snow Crash is a three-dimensional world where individuals navigate and interact with others through their graphical representations or avatars.

11

Chapter Two: Literature Review of Virtual Worlds the residents are from areas outside the U.S. Not surprisingly, foreign language instruction is very popular in-world. Overall, there are a total of approximately 19 million registered accounts, and almost 1.4 million residents have logged into this world in the past 60 days (Second Life: Economic Statistics, 2009). In comparison, virtual worlds such as Active Worlds have one million registered accounts, and more than two million users have created accounts in There.com (Kzero, 2009). While the population statistics indicate that SL is popular with many people, some residents and scholars speculate about the end of this world. For example, stagnating activity levels have caused writers and consultants like Clay Shirky (2006) to question the number of residents reported in SL. He believes that SL may be a victim of what he calls the “Try Me” virus – individuals sign up for SL accounts but are not repeat visitors. Over the past year or two, the number of people who spend time in-world has not increased and has remained flat. One possible reason for this is that once individuals learn how to navigate SL, they may have difficulty finding things to do. In fact, reports suggest that 85% of SL avatars have been abandoned (Rose, 2007). Au (2009) also notes that in June 2009, 133,000 SL users were responsible for almost 90% of all in-world activity. He continues by observing that slightly more than 400,000 unique users are staying in SL less than three hours per month. A dwindling interest in SL can be found with companies, too. While a number of businesses started up operations in SL, only a few big name companies remain – IBM, Cisco Systems, and Playboy. Many of these companies used SL as a digital marketing test bed. Nissan, for example, created a virtual vending machine that enabled residents to purchase cars to test drive or test fly. But as interest in these initiatives started to wane, companies began to look elsewhere to invest their limited marketing dollars. Part of the problem, according to Ludlow and

12

Chapter Two: Literature Review of Virtual Worlds Wallace (2007), is that corporations such as Nissan are simply bringing their old, unoriginal ideas with them into SL and are using the space to produce “eye candy” (p. 257). The other companies that continue to do business in SL do so only virtually and have no physical world equivalent. Nonetheless, some pundits argue that interest in SL is not fading; rather, they believe this virtual world has become a niche service – one that supports artists, musicians, and other content creators (Sulčič, 2009). There is also evidence that Linden Lab, the creator of SL, wants to make SL more business friendly by offering corporations new services such as calling into virtual world meetings via cell phone. In addition, companies are using SL and other worlds to train employees (Flandez, 2008) and conduct corporate meetings as well as other corporate events (Morrison, 2009). Furthermore, some virtual worlds, like those promoted by metaverse development company Rivers Run Red, enable individuals to have private work spaces (Clark, 2008). Virtual training spaces, private cyber work spaces, and similar concepts were first demonstrated in 1968 by Doug Engelbart, a Silicon Valley pioneer. However, it is only in recent times that these ideas have become possible to implement due to advances in computing power, software availability, and networking speeds. In the event that SL has entered the “gloom stage” (Greenberg, 2008) and another world replaces it, much of what is described about SL may transfer to other virtual worlds (Au, 2008). In addition, Brown and Thomas (2006) explain that skills acquired in a virtual world may benefit individuals offline. These authors discuss the experience of Stephen Gillett, who applied for a job at Yahoo! Because of his experience as one of the top guild masters in World of Warcraft (WoW), which has been described as a “total immersion course in leadership” (Brown & Thomas, 2006, n.p.), Gillett got the job. Not only may experience in these virtual worlds improve

13

Chapter Two: Literature Review of Virtual Worlds leadership capabilities, the acquisition of such skills may also surprise individuals who have never viewed themselves as leaders (Reeves, Malone, & O’Driscoll, 2008). However, making the business world “fun” will not be easy. The adoption of the approach to leadership that is commonly found in many online worlds would “require a change in most organizations’ cultures” (Reeves, Malone, & O’Driscoll, 2008, p. 66). Businesses that want to incorporate virtual worlds into their plans are not the only entities that will have to change; educators who want to move in this direction will have to undergo a cultural change as well.

Educational Uses of Second Life Use of graphical virtual worlds for educational purposes is not a new concept. In the 1990s, Charles Hughes and J. Michael Moshell created ExploreNet, a two-dimensional world designed for elementary and middle school students (Hughes & Moshell, 1997). The inspiration for this world was derived from LucasFilm’s Habitat environment. Over the past five years, interest in the educational uses of virtual worlds has grown (de Freitas, 2008). For example, between April 15, 2007 and May 16, 2007, Jennings and Collins (2008) identified 170 educational institutions in SL. In August 2007, Sussman (2007) reported that more than 300 universities had incorporated SL into their teaching activities. Further, at least 50 libraries have a presence in-world. (L. Bell, personal communication, April 18, 2008; Pope et al., 2007). These virtual world activities are not solely confined to the space of SL. There is also an active group of educators involved in the Second Life educators email discussion list (SLED) hosted by Linden Lab. Between 2006 and 2007, the membership increased from 500 to almost 3,900 members (Arreguin, 2007, p. 3). In a recent discussion list post, Pathfinder Linden (2009) announced that there were 5,074 SLED members.

14

Chapter Two: Literature Review of Virtual Worlds Physical world connections. Immersion in a virtual world such as SL enables students to “blur the boundary between fantasy and reality” and become “learner[s] across the digital and material domains” (Bayne, 2008b, p. 197) – a comingling of the familiar and the unfamiliar. While virtual worlds have the ability to transcend corporal limitations, physical world metaphors are prolific in SL. Bayne (2008b) claims that for some students, virtual worlds represent strangeness or uncanny spaces. 5 This can be uncomfortable for students, and the process of learning to be can be met with “resistance, moral panic, and nostalgia for an earlier, more innocent, less complicated time” (Carrington, 2005, p. 480). Perhaps because virtual environments can be unfamiliar and create uncertainty, colleges and universities, for example, are building replicas of their campuses in SL. They are also creating models of museums and even science laboratories (de Freitas, 2008). De Freitas (2008) suggests that institutions that are mimicking what can be found in the physical world are doing so to reach new audiences. However, Arreguin (2007) argues that instructors should find ways to utilize the affordances of virtual worlds to their advantage, rather than simply replicating physical world models. In other words, instructors need to implement active learning techniques and student-centered pedagogies in-world instead of reproducing lectures and rote learning techniques. Active learning. Strong immersion, which can empower participants to “shape an experience,” is not passive (Dede, 2005a, 2005b). One feature that makes SL unique is that the content is created by its users. SL also allows users to create experiential learning opportunities. According to Brown (2002), individuals who traditionally produced knowledge (i.e., the faculty) are now becoming consumers of knowledge that the traditional consumers (i.e., students) produce. Educators suggest that virtual worlds such as SL are powerful in that they enable 5

This concept is a term used by Freud, which Carrington (2003) defines as an experience that is unfamiliar.

15

Chapter Two: Literature Review of Virtual Worlds students to learn through seeing, knowing, and doing within visually rich and mentally engaging spaces. Moreover, virtual worlds can enable students to learn new practices while they also engage in these and other types of what-if experimentation (Halverson, Shaffer, Squire, & Steinkuehler, 2006). There are benefits for instructors, as well; they can explore and experiment with new learning models in-world that may also influence what takes place in the physical classroom. Through real time interactions with other residents and with content, students may gain interpersonal and professional skills that will help them outside the virtual world (JISC, 2009). Students can plan by mapping out strategies to overcome challenges and navigate charted and uncharted paths. Even the choice of an avatar can be a learning experience that motivates students (Lee & Hoadley, 2007). Moreover, students employ intellectual decision-making to explore alternatives or different viewpoints by modifying the visual display—for example, by selecting the avatar’s expression or switching between first- and third-person viewpoints. Also, through a process that is a “combination of context, activities, and action” (Kalay, 2004, p. 196), students are able to create a sense of place. Students often assert that they learn more from the experiences that occur in this environment than from reading the text alone (Van, 2007). The “classroom” hierarchy. SL is a virtual world that extends the boundaries of the physical classroom. Jenkins, Purushotma, Clinton, Weigel, and Robison (2008) argue that collective intelligence is an integral part of this approach. These authors draw from the work of Levy (2000), who claims that “in such a world, everyone knows something, nobody knows everything, and what any one person knows can be tapped by the group as a whole” (p. 39). Individuals from around the world can come together to have shared experiences and engage in shared practices. SL also supports the notion of collective intelligence, as defined by Levy in

16

Chapter Two: Literature Review of Virtual Worlds 1994 (McGonigal, 2008). In his book, Wisdom of Crowds, Surowiecki (2005) outlines four characteristics of a smart crowd: These collective groups are diverse, decentralized, independent, and can summarize people’s opinions into a collective verdict. In the context of SL, specifically, everyone is a teacher; everyone is a learner. As these statements suggest, conducting classes in SL would seem to require instructors to adopt new roles as guide, mentor, or facilitator. The steep learning curve alone requires them to become learners, too. Because the commonly accepted educational roles become blurred in the new environment, SL can be disorienting to both students and instructors; therefore, instructors need to take the time to learn the interface and the culture. Moreover, familiar ways of delivering content (e.g., lectures, rote learning) may not be as effective in SL. Instructors must also learn how to create interactivity between students and the virtual worlds. The role of the students participating in SL changes, as well. In this participatory culture, they must be social, less passive, and acquire virtual world literacy skills. For many students, this shift is a positive one. As one student observed, “I think that what Schome [an Open University project involving Teen SL] is doing through breaking down the barriers between ‘teachers’ and ‘students,’ making it hard to see where one stops and the other begins, is fantastic” (Open University, 2007, p. 15). Also, because the student-instructor interactions are unfamiliar and surrounded by uncertainty, they can be viewed and reflected upon from a fresh perspective (Bayne, 2008a). Identity formation. Not only do residents of virtual worlds construct the content, but they construct their identity, as well. Gee (2003) refers to the concept of a “projective identity,” which he defines as the “interface between one’s real-world identities and the virtual identity” (p. 66). Individuals construct their identity in virtual worlds through their avatars. These digital, graphical characters can be used in a variety of ways – to greet, signal group identification,

17

Chapter Two: Literature Review of Virtual Worlds interact, and even create feelings of closeness. In other words, avatars can foster a sense of the real – one that is corporeal but digital at the same time. In a virtual world like Second Life, presence is expressed to an individual or to a group through images presented on a computer screen. In this arena, it is not uncommon for residents to feel that their personal space has been invaded if another avatar gets too close to theirs. What does an avatar reveal about a person? Role playing through an avatar is extremely popular with young people; Jenkins et al. (2008) argue that this form of identity play allows them to understand themselves and those around them. Residents may use the avatar as a way to experiment or engage in “identity tourism” (Taylor, 2002, p. 58) by relying on stereotypes and caricatures to form their avatar’s personality. While a fixed library of clothing and assorted accessories are available to residents of SL, some individuals spend a considerable amount of time customizing their avatars to present a certain look. Further, the avatar can serve as a type of doppelganger (i.e., double or look-alike). In educational settings, however, there can be limits on student identity experimentation and exploration. First, it is possible in the SL classroom for individuals to be “disembodied lurkers” (Bayne, 2008a, p. 199) – individuals who are looking over the shoulder of the student at the keyboard. Next, role-play activities that involve cross-dressing and gender swapping are popular in-world. These activities are less common and short-lived in academic situations, due to non-anonymity policies and professional norms of the “community” (e.g., Bayne, 2005; Monroe, 1999). Also as educational activities move online and the bodies of participants ‘disappear,’ Wilson (1999) emphasizes that these individuals, as well as their written and spoken discourse, are shaped by their physical world embodied experiences. She continues by noting that technical skills, or lack thereof, can contribute to the individual’s online voice and power, as well. In spite

18

Chapter Two: Literature Review of Virtual Worlds of these and other restrictions on experimentation, it is through avatars that individuals come to understand embodiment in virtual worlds (Taylor, 2002). Communication. Communication is another way to express embodiment in virtual worlds. Avatars “speak” through text chat or voice and are also able to display emotions and gestures (e.g., laugh or jump to express happiness, yawn to express boredom, wave to express a greeting). Students can chat with each other in real time, and they can also “see” each other while doing so (Boulos et al., 2007). Virtual worlds provide students and teachers the opportunity for reflection, as well. Chat logs capture spontaneous class discussions automatically; they are free and available to review at any time. This feature also enables researchers to reread and analyze the transcripts. While some critics claim that these worlds are merely “glorified chat rooms,” Nesson and Nesson (2008) disagree. They believe that the persistence and physical nature of SL can enable educators to create a different type of distance education, which may “permit the creation of a class community in a way that has not previously been possible in distance education” (p. 274). Social interaction. Socializing is another way to convey presence and embodiment in virtual worlds. Avatars attend formal events like weddings, funerals, and class sessions. Virtual world advocates like Cory Ondrejka – the former Chief Technology Officer at Linden Lab – believe that SL fosters these and other types of ritualistic activities, as well as the development of community and collaboration. As Ondrejka (2008) argues, virtual worlds have enabled a greater number of individuals to experience online collaboration. Group affiliation can also enhance social interaction. In SL, one of the possible group affiliations is “librarian.” This label often serves as a signal for others to approach the resident and ask questions. This affiliation also provides others with a sense of trust; they know and understand what a librarian is about. In

19

Chapter Two: Literature Review of Virtual Worlds some cases, groups of individuals share a common dress code, which can reveal a lot about them (Taylor, 2002). Students attending a course on virtual librarianship in SL, for example, may wear “I love libraries” t-shirts to the in-world session. In this type of learning ecology, the “crosspollination” of global and local ideas through group interactions and socialization can be powerful (Brown, 2002). Educational examples. In SL, it is easy to watch someone demonstrate an act. There are educational events where people teach others; there are also courses that are designed to meet the needs of local and remote students. The CyberOne law class at Harvard University is an example of these types of offerings. SL is becoming a hot spot for English language learning, as well. Individuals like Professor Edd Schneider are finding success with using virtual worlds to teach languages, particularly English as a Second Language (Waters, 2007). Further, Kip Boahn has launched his own SL island dedicated to providing free language resources for students and teachers (Ruberg, 2000). On Boahn’s island, “Second Life English” uses team teaching, role playing, quests, and other methods that enable students to practice what they learn. Another location in SL that is devoted to English language instruction is “The English Village.” While this location is more commercially oriented, its organizers are experimenting with free in-world language-learning trips and treasure hunts. When inhabiting these worlds, students can actively use the skills they are acquiring. In the examples presented here, students are able to debate the merits of a particular legal case or practice their newly acquired language skills. Further, virtual world instructors suggest that their students do not view these virtual tasks as work, but rather as activities that are “fun” and playful.

20

Chapter Three: Technological Affordances and Second Life CHAPTER THREE: TECHNOLOGICAL AFFORDANCES AND SECOND LIFE Affordances and Abilities The term “affordances” was first introduced by the perceptual psychologist James Gibson (1977, 1986/1979). He defined affordances as “actionable properties” or relationships between the world and an actor (e.g., human, animal). Affordances do not have to be visible to the actor. Further, the affordances may enable concealing or hiding objects from other observers. In some cases, the actor can misperceive the affordances, which may be due to the characteristics of the surface and its layout. While affordances may be hidden or even undesirable, they are always dependent on the capabilities of the actor. Nonetheless, Gibson contends that basic affordances are perceivable and require little learning on the part of the actor. The design community, particularly individuals in the areas of graphical and industrial design such as Norman (1990/1988), appropriated the concept of affordances. To Norman (1990/1988), affordances signal the range of possible actions, functions, and uses of an object, which he contrasts to the concept of constraints or restrictions that limit its usability. Extending Gibson’s idea, Norman (1990/1988, 1999) put forth the notion of perceived affordances, which differ from real ones. In this view, the emphasis is placed on the affordances the user perceives to be valid rather than those that are actually present. Norman (1999) emphasizes that computers come with built-in physical affordances. The computer screen, mouse buttons, and keyboard, for example, enable users to point, click, and examine the pixel creations on the screen. The perceptions of affordances are often triggered by visual feedback. For instance, a change in the appearance of the mouse icon when it approaches a “clickable object” might cause the user to perceive that clicking would produce meaningful results. In general, real

21

Chapter Three: Technological Affordances and Second Life affordances specify the range of activities that users are able to perform; however, if these are too abstract and not recognizable to the user, they are of little value.

Affordances and Constraints of Second Life As in other computer-based environments, the technological affordances of SL enable individuals to carry out certain actions in-world. In this persistent and diverse three-dimensional environment that is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, individuals can construct an identity, become an inhabitant of the space, and participate in SL life. Individuals in SL are referred to specifically as “residents,” a label given to them by Linden Lab (Au, 2008). All residents begin their SL as an adult. When individuals log in for the first time, they are asked to select an avatar name and create an appearance for their generic avatar. In the past, many residents began their in-world life on Orientation Island, which was the default starting location. More recently, the starting point for SL newcomers has become Help Island. Some SL residents also recommend beginning at Virtual Ability Island due to its assortment of orientation materials. In these spaces, residents can learn how to navigate the visually rich environment (e.g., walking, flying, picking up artifacts, teleporting 6), change their appearance, and meet others who are new to the virtual world. Many of these affordances are carried out through the physical manipulation of the computer’s arrow keys and mouse. While SL spaces such as Orientation Island are helpful to newcomers, SL can still be an ambiguous, time consuming, and exhausting place (Carr, Oliver, & Burn, 2008). Boostrom (2008) also contends that there is a stigma associated with new SL residents (i.e., newbies); he notes that experience can be conveyed through changing elements of appearance and mastering 6

Teleporting refers to the technological transfer of matter from one location to another. This is a common form of transportation in science fiction.

22

Chapter Three: Technological Affordances and Second Life the SL walk, 7 for example. While changing clothes and walking are relatively simple for most individuals in the physical world, it surprises many newbies that it takes time to become adept at performing these actions, at learning the accepted SL norms. 8 Once the core competencies have been mastered, residents can further enhance their available movements through a set of instructions (i.e., animations). Different types of animation programs are available; some enable residents to dance, pose, and clap their hands, to name a few. As this suggests, virtual worlds such as SL in principle enable residents to be anyone they want to be. In 2007, Global Market Insite, Inc. (GMI) interviewed 9,529 U.S. consumers aged 18 and above. According to this poll, 24% of respondents claim they go to SL to escape real life. In addition to escaping, some people use SL as a way to alter their appearance. The same poll found that 64% present themselves differently: 45% give themselves a more attractive body, and 37% make themselves younger. As is the case with other online environments, including email, discussion lists, and MUDs, race tends not to be discussed in SL. In her ethnographic study of the MUD Blue Sky, Kendall (2002) found that characters were assumed to be White males unless proven otherwise. Au (2008) tells a similar story about Bel Muse and her virtual world experiences. In the physical world, Bel Muse is an African American woman, but in SL, she is a Caucasian female avatar with blonde hair. No one ever asks if her in-world persona matches the image she presents in the physical world. There are similarities between the appearance customization and communication options found in SL and the fantastical environments of EverQuest (EQ) or WoW. However, one feature that makes SL different is that the users create the content and own the intellectual property rights to it. It is this ability to create the story and alter its characteristics that differentiates SL 7

Boostrom (2008) describes the SL newbie walk as “jerky and less efficient” (p. 14). He learned from other residents what was needed to develop a more fluid walking style. 8 See Chapter 1 of Boellstorff (2008) for a more detailed description of the everyday life of an avatar in Second Life.

23

Chapter Three: Technological Affordances and Second Life from other massively multiplayer online games (MMOGs; Ondrejka, 2008). The ability to upload images, sounds, and animations into SL make this virtual environment different, as well. This ability to create was not the original focus of SL but evolved as residents began experimenting with the space (Au, 2008). In contrast to other virtual worlds, SL is viewed as more flexible because the goals and the rules associated with it are less defined than those in other environments such as EQ and WoW. Rather, the SL focus is concentrated on collaborative, hands-on play and socialization without physical world constraints. Roush (2007) investigated gaming and social worlds, and notes that the main difference between SL and MMOGs is that “they are at the opposite ends of what might be called the Axis of Upheaval” – in comparison to WoW, SL is an “eternal garden party” (n.p.). However, the lines that differentiate worlds like SL from other virtual spaces are blurring. In their review of the literature, for example, de Freitas and Griffiths (2008) examine ways digital environments, including virtual worlds such as SL, are converging with other media such as cinema, the Internet (i.e., online games as an interface), and mobile devices. A common theme from an education perspective that de Freitas and Griffiths highlight is that these convergence trends place greater emphasis on the learner, provide more opportunities for horizontal learning (e.g., peer-to-peer learning, per Wenger, 1998), and enable more social interaction among learners. Interestingly, the notion of learners as the producers of content (and not merely consumers) contradicts the thoughts of Nielsen (1993) – a leading web usability consultant – who stated that users are not designers. Moreover, much of the activity in-world involves chatting with others. Because of the concentration on interaction, SL has also been referred to as a three-dimensional social networking site. Comparisons have also been made between SL and communes of the 1970s, in that the virtual world is “beyond the frontiers of the mind” (Guest,

24

Chapter Three: Technological Affordances and Second Life 2007, p. 24). But because individuals tend to recreate what is familiar, it is not surprising that many locations in-world replicate those found in the physical world. While the SL affordances present possibilities for residents, the technology itself can also create complications. First, computers must meet the SL system requirements, otherwise residents may not be able to participate in SL life to the fullest extent. Also, some Internet connections, including dial-up, satellite Internet, and various wireless Internet services are not compatible with SL. Further, graphics cards that are not recommended for use with SL may not work. These high system requirements may prevent some individuals from using SL. For example, Dumbleton (2007) argues that technological requirements can create difficulties, especially given that “dedicated graphics cards are not the norm in school and college computers” (p. 60). In addition to the system requirements that may serve as a barrier to the virtual world, there are times when SL is inaccessible. Technical difficulties are typically reported on the Second Life Official Blog. 9 The problems may be resolved within a matter of minutes, or residents may not be able to login for several hours. There are times in-world when the SL system freezes and residents have to logout and login again. While the technical affordances can make certain actions possible in-world, the technology can also created difficulties for the residents of SL. In general, much of SL is based upon physical world metaphors. This is to make the virtual space more familiar and potentially attract more newcomers (Cousin, 2005; de Freitas, 2008). But designing shadows of physical spaces, like the office environment with its files and folders or the college campus with its auditoriums, libraries, and lecture hall stages, fosters the construction of metaphors that are misleading, which can work against instructors and learners. Moreover, these duplicate worlds maintain the defined model and do not contest its hierarchical 9

The URL for the technology channel of the SL blog is https://blogs.secondlife.com/community/technology .

25

Chapter Three: Technological Affordances and Second Life assumptions (e.g., Nunes, 1999). In other words, as Cousin (2005) argues, virtual world instructors never have to leave the traditional learning environment.

Synchronous Educational Chat and Second Life SL residents have the ability to communicate through synchronous and asynchronous modes. Text chat is one of the primary ways that residents communicate with each other. Instant messaging (IM) is also available for more private conversations. Text chat and IM are automatically recorded by the system for free, and these transcripts are available for individuals to review at a later time. In addition, in early 2007, SL introduced an audio chat or voice option, which is a common feature included in many MMOGs such as World of Warcraft. While conversations conducted through audio chat are not recorded by the SL system, external recording programs such as Audacity – a digital audio recorder – can be used for this purpose. Synchronous chat enhances social presence and enables active engagement by instructors and students in two-way communication. Yet the effectiveness of synchronous chat tools to facilitate deep learning has been much debated in the literature. Im and Lee (2003/2004), for example, found that synchronous discussions promoted social interactions and created a friendly environment; however, these authors discovered that deep, substantive learning discussions did not develop. In contrast to rote or temporary learning, deep learning emphasizes a conceptual understanding in which the student interacts with the content and connects those ideas to previous knowledge (Armitt, Slack, Green, & Beer, 2002; Beattie, Collins, & McInnes, 1997). Reflection is a key component of deep learning. In the case of the synchronous study conducted by Im and Lee (2003/2004), students did not engage in the reflective process and as a result, never moved beyond a surface learning approach. There are questions regarding the

26

Chapter Three: Technological Affordances and Second Life ability of time-dependent online communication modes to promote successful reflection (e.g., Kirk, 2000). But some research suggests that synchronous discussions can support active, critical reflection through peer or tutor interactions, as well as through individual reading and writing activities (Armitt et al., 2002; Levin, He, & Robbins, 2006). Further, most synchronous communication systems, including those in SL, automatically record the chat conversations. The resulting transcripts can be reviewed at a later time, which also encourages the reflection process. However, using text chat in an educational setting is not always easy. For instance, studies show that it is difficult to negotiate meaning (Bober & Dennen, 2001) and discuss complex topics (Teng & Taveras, 2004-2005) via text chat. This is particularly true in cases with large groups of students; the interactions can become unmanageable (e.g., Ingram, Hathorn, & Evans, 2000). In addition, Jeong (1996) found that a disadvantage to synchronous interactions was that the conversation digressed from the main topic of discussion. Because there may be several simultaneous conversations occurring, some students report that there are times when the chat discussions are difficult to follow (Davidson-Shivers, Muilenburg, & Tanner, 2001; Gonzales & de Montes, 2002; Ingram, Hathorn, & Evans, 2000). While the environment enables geographically dispersed individuals to come together, the different time zones may make it difficult for them to participate in synchronous chat discussions. Thus, Dawn Poole (2000) argues that synchronous chat sessions should be scheduled only when necessary to support student understanding. Regardless, there is research to suggest that some benefits are associated with these tools. Chat tools are thought to invite more informal, more interactive, and more social types of conversations (Herring & Nix, 1997; Paulus, 2007). Some scholars contend that these chat conversations have enabled educators to be successful in building a sense of community among

27

Chapter Three: Technological Affordances and Second Life their students (e.g., Branon & Essex, 2001; Harmon & Jones, 2001; Im & Lee, 2003/2004). In addition, the research shows that students participating in collaborative activities may benefit from and are supported through the use of synchronous chat (Ingram, Hathorn, & Evans, 2000; Kitchen & McDougall, 1998-1999; Orvis, Wisher, Bonk, & Olson, 2002). Text chat has also been used effectively to brainstorm ideas, as well as to discuss technical and logistical issues (Branon & Essex, 2001). Further, Park and Bonk (2007b) note that one of the merits of synchronous sessions is that the fixed time may serve as a “due date,” which may discourage some students from procrastinating. For the instructors, these regular sessions can help them assess the needs of students and their levels of understanding more regularly (Gonzales & de Montes, 2002). Researchers such as Wang and Newlin (2001) have found that participation levels in chat conversations are valuable predictors of students’ final grades, as well. Moreover, some educators believe that chat enables the virtual classroom to be more student-centered, because no one has to wait to be called on by the teacher – the lines of communication are open to anyone at anytime. In other words, no single voice can dominate the conversation; this includes the instructor (e.g., Jenkins, 2004). Students can also ask questions and receive feedback instantaneously from peers and the instructor, which makes communication more spontaneous and dynamic (Chou, 2001; Davidson-Shivers, Muilenburg, & Tanner, 2001; Levin, He, & Robbins, 2006; Park & Bonk, 2007b). Furthermore, Lobel, Neubauer, and Swedburg (2006) found that the words and messages generated by the students during the synchronous sessions were greater in comparison to face-to-face situations. Exposure to diverse viewpoints is a supplemental educational benefit found by scholars studying synchronous learning environments (e.g., Park & Bonk, 2007a, 2007b). Synchronous communication may also reduce confusion in that students receive immediate clarification. In addition, the ability to

28

Chapter Three: Technological Affordances and Second Life address questions in front of all the students reduces the number of individual emails the instructor may have to answer later (Wang & Newlin, 2001). Text chat and IM are forms of communication available to the students and instructors who participate in the SL courses included in this study. For the most part, text chat is the prevailing form of communication during the courses, and IM is used in case of an “emergency” (e.g., getting lost and/or needing a teleport to class). At the beginning of sessions, the instructor typically asks the students not to use IM unless necessary. While voice became an optional feature in 2007, the instructors of these sessions have made a conscious decision not to use this mode of communication for several reasons. The instructors claim that the text chat is more widely available to students. They also point out that chat levels the playing field and makes the conversations more egalitarian (see also Wang & Newlin, 2001); with the audio option, Instructor IE 10 noted that it is easy for one or two students to dominate the conversations. In other words, she believes that chat fosters open lines of communication and makes the class discussions more democratic. Also, the Second Life courses are conducted in SL Time (SLT), which is Pacific Time. For some, translating SLT into their own time can be a tricky mathematical calculation. When students are coming together from geographically dispersed locations, language proficiency may be an issue, as well. Non-native English speakers may have difficulty contributing due to the rapid pace of discussions, and support strategies such as rephrasing or summarizing earlier posts may be needed (e.g., Park & Bonk, 2008b). Moreover, not everyone is an accomplished typist. With chat, fast typists are privileged and may monopolize class discussions. Individuals with good computing skills also have an advantage in the initial chat discussions. They may find it 10

To protect their physical world identities, instructors and students who participated in this dissertation research are referred to by their pseudonyms.

29

Chapter Three: Technological Affordances and Second Life easier to get online and begin to actively participate in the discussions than their less computersavvy peers (Harmon & Jones, 2001; Ingram, Hathorn, & Evans, 2000) The technology itself may complicate chat discussions, as well. For example, in SL, it is not uncommon for the system to “crash.” This can cause portions of the conversation to be lost. Additionally, these system problems may block students and even the instructor out of the discussion. Lag time may also result in the delay of the appearance of messages. These technical difficulties are not unique to SL. In fact, similar software and system malfunctions have been reported as frustrations in other synchronous chat environments (e.g., Harmon & Jones, 2001).

30

Chapter Four: Review of Theoretical Perspectives CHAPTER FOUR: REVIEW OF THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES Much of the discussion surrounding the use of technology for educational purposes promotes the idea of a student-centered learning environment, one where the teacher takes on the role of a guide instead of an all-knowing expert. More specifically, many of the arguments in support of virtual worlds for teaching and learning purposes are typically framed through a constructivist lens. But because student novices need to become proficient in the basic commands in order to navigate the SL environment successfully, some scholars suggest that adopting a student-centered approach may minimize the educational potential of the virtual world (Salt, Atkins, & Blackall, 2008). The most effective way to convey this form of knowledge and develop the students’ core competencies may be through teacher-centered instructional tactics and prescribed activities. For these students who have yet to acquire a basic skill set, the constructivist approach alone may be lacking. Some educational technology advocates contend that educational materials can be delivered effectively through online environments. Further, scholars such as Jones and Bronack (2007) assert that a different way of thinking about the role of teaching and student-instructor interactions is needed when entering these online spaces. Yet, a consensus about pedagogy for virtual worlds has not yet been reached (Levine & Sun, 2006; Natriello, 2005). In fact, the pedagogical practices found in these environments show little resemblance to established educational theory (Jung, 2001). Natriello (2005) believes that educators in these threedimensional spaces will rely heavily on their prior experiences in the physical classroom. Even the structure of heavily-used virtual learning environments (VLEs) relies on pre-digital metaphors such as print and face-to-face learning situations (Bayne, 2005; Cousin, 2005; Hemmi, Bayne, & Land, 2009).

31

Chapter Four: Review of Theoretical Perspectives This section examines teacher-centered and student-centered educational environments. In addition, two theoretical perspectives that are applicable to the study of educational uses of virtual worlds are discussed. The literature puts forth the notion that educators need to move away from traditional teacher-centered instructional approaches and adopt more social and participatory models. Thus, teacher-centered educational approaches and their alignment with behaviorism will be examined first. Next, the discussion will turn toward an investigation of student-centered learning environments and constructivist concepts, which many virtual world educators and scholars use to support their arguments for the adoption of virtual words for teaching and learning.

Teacher-centered Learning Environments Existing education practices tend to regard thinking as a process that is consistent across all learners (Greeno, 1989). In the current teacher-centered environment, educators have stressed the importance of transmitting facts to learners, with the hope that the information will transfer come test time. Therein lies the rub; the exchange value may be such that learners are able to perform well on tests and other assessment measures; however, this does not mean they will be able to activate that knowledge spontaneously. The physical world context is de-emphasized or completely severed, and as a result, the knowledge may lie inert and unusable outside the context of the classroom. Instead of developing knowledge or tools that will assist them in solving problems, learners passively acquire a collection of facts from an all-knowing teacher. This type of knowledge is fragile and creates a situation where the learning can become meaningless. At this time, however, the teachers’ perceived need to sacrifice deep understanding for broad material

32

Chapter Four: Review of Theoretical Perspectives coverage tends to overshadow the issue. The fear that valuable class time will be spent on initiatives that will not transfer is a real one. Therefore, teacher-centered educational approaches tend to focus on microcontext instruction methods where subsets of larger problems are examined. With this approach, topics can change on a daily basis without providing adequate time for learners to obtain a deep and rich understanding of the material. One theory that is often linked to teacher-centered approaches is behaviorism. To those who follow behaviorist pedagogy practices, learning is viewed as an activity that takes place inside the head of a person. The assumption of the philosophies put forth by Locke and Hume is that the child’s mind is like a blank slate waiting to be written on or an empty container ready to be filled. The teacher is referred to as the “sage on the stage” by many critics of this approach. Drill and skill techniques and the standardized tests that accompany them are often associated with this theory, yet they may not be able to account for higher-order thinking found in society. Papert (1993) points to the work of Paulo Freire (Freire & Macedo, 1987), who uses a “banking model” to describe the behaviorist approach to education. According to Papert’s interpretation of Freire’s metaphor, “information is deposited in the child’s mind” (p. 14), and knowledge is “treated like money to be put away in a bank for the future” (p. 51). In this model, learning is about the future and not the present potential to use it. In certain basic learning situations, however, some educators suggest that behaviorism may be appropriate (e.g., Jonassen, Mayes & McAleese, 1993; Mergel, 1998). While the constructivist approach is currently in favor among many advocates of educational technologies, Conole (2007) argues that theoretical models to explain research findings in digital domains are lacking. Thus, a better understanding of behaviorism as well as constructivism may be useful in unpacking the complexities associated with educational uses of digital spaces.

33

Chapter Four: Review of Theoretical Perspectives Until recent times, behaviorism has been the dominant learning theory (Saettler, 2004). The behaviorist movement was led initially by John B. Watson (1913) – a psychologist who introduced the notion of behaviorism, founded the American school of behaviorism, and was influenced by classical conditioning experiments conducted by Ivan Pavlov. More recently, the concept of behaviorism has been associated with B. F. Skinner (1969), who followed Watson’s lead yet deviated from it at the same time by developing the theory of operant conditioning. Much of Skinner’s work stems from experiments designed to test the consequences of reinforcing environmental stimuli on behavior-related responses conducted with laboratory rats and pigeons. Interestingly, Skinner did not believe behaviorism should be viewed as a learning theory (Skinner, 1950); rather, he argued that behaviorism was an experimental way to analyze behavior (Skinner, 1974). According to these theorists, observable behaviors and events are of primary importance, because they are objective. Mental events and other aspects that were not readily observable were irrelevant to this group of scholars. When the mind is viewed as a “black box,” the content is not visible or measurable to any degree of validity; thus, what occurs inside the mind is not important. Further, they believed that the experience of reinforcements was what influenced behavior, not thoughts, feelings, and emotions. Individuals, or “biological machines” (DeMar, 1989), simply respond to conditioning and are therefore not responsible for their actions. Not only does this theory purport to be an avenue to understand behavior better, but it also proposes to be an approach to manipulate and control behavior. In the world of education, this translated into a step-by-step curriculum that concentrated on observable and measurable learning outcomes.

34

Chapter Four: Review of Theoretical Perspectives By the 1920s, flaws in the theory began to be revealed, and modifications to the ideas of behaviorism were put forth (e.g., Tolman, 1922). Nonetheless, behaviorist thought prevailed until the 1950s and was used extensively by experimental psychologists. By the late 1950s and into the early 1960s, the popularity of this theoretical perspective began to decline. But even as behaviorism was gaining disfavor among scholars, behaviorist ideals continued to influence areas beyond the field of psychology. For example, the impact of this theory can be seen in the development of science-based technology instruction. Its influence can be seen in educational technology and instructional design, as well (e.g., Driscoll, 2005). More specifically, Saettler (2004) identifies six areas that illustrate the effect of behaviorism on educational technology in the U.S. from 1950 to 1980. They include 1) the behavioral objectives movement, 2) teaching machines, 3) the programmed instruction movement, 4) individual instructional approaches, 5) computer-assisted learning, and 6) the systems approach to instruction. It was not until the late 1970s that the focus of scholars, particularly those in the psychological sciences, began to shift toward cognitive theories. At that time, there were also educational technologists who were exploring new theories and approaches, and who were drawing from cognitive psychology to study human performance. Cognitive theory may be used by some scholars investigating the intricacies of life in a virtual world. Nonetheless, Skinner’s flavor of behaviorism continues to influence educational technologists (e.g., Jonassen, 1991). However, discussions about the educational activities that take place in these fantastical online environments tend to assume a utopian position; the focus rests primarily on the purported learning benefits associated with these student-centered virtual environments. Constructivism is commonly used to frame these discussions.

35

Chapter Four: Review of Theoretical Perspectives Student-centered Learning Environments Many of today’s educators who propose a change in school culture assert that schools should move away from teacher-centered and behaviorist models; instead these individual tout the formation of more student-centered environments that support constructivist ideals. Stated another way, a student-centered environment is one that provides guidance, support, and a context of learning for students as they construct their own understanding. However, as Rice and Wilson (1999) point out, the concept of constructivism has been promoted by educators for decades. In fact, these authors contend that it was a popular theory among public educators such as John Dewey (1997/1938) in the 1930s and 1940s. Currently, constructivism and its related principles are heavily relied upon by educational technology advocates. Duffy and Jonassen (1992) contribute this renewed interest in constructivism to the availability of new technologies and their potential to support approaches that are consistent with the constructivist theory. Bonk and Cunningham (1998) add that emerging technological developments make the concepts put forth by social constructivists such as Vygotsky now possible. It is worth mentioning that there is no single constructivist theory of education per se; rather, constructivism draws from multiple perspectives such as cognitive development, contextual learning, and ecological psychology, to name a few. Regardless, the general position articulated by constructivists is that individuals construct their own knowledge rather than passively receive it. According to this approach, students take an active role in their learning. A similar theory, but one that places more emphasis on the social aspects of learning, is constructionism. Papert (1990) coined the term “constructionism,” which is defined as knowledge that is built by the student and not the teacher. This work expands on the cognitive constructivist ideas presented by Piaget (1952) and his belief that increasingly complex

36

Chapter Four: Review of Theoretical Perspectives intellectual processes are built on the foundations laid in earlier stages of child development. In his later work, Papert (1993) introduced the constructionism learning theory. While it is inspired by constructivist epistemologies, constructionism emphasizes experiential learning and builds on ideas put forth by Piaget. Papert describes the difference between behaviorism, or “traditional” 11 education, and constructionism in the following manner: Traditional education codifies what it thinks citizens need to know and sets out to feed children this ‘fish.’ Constructionism is built on the assumption that children will do the best by finding (‘fishing’) for themselves the specific knowledge they need…The kind of knowledge children most need is the knowledge that will help them get more knowledge. (p. 139) When the child’s past experiences are ignored, the assumption defaults to the notion that learning takes place in the head (Dewey, 1997/1938). Because learning and intelligence are distributed in a person’s world (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Bruner, 1997; Cole & Engeström, 1993), students must find meaning within a cultural context (Bruner, 1997). These interactions with others help “children find out what culture is about and how it conceives the world” (Bruner, 1997, p. 20). For example, educational activities such as learning to read do not reside solely with the individual; rather, the process of learning to read is distributed across the teacher, other students, and cultural artifacts (Cole & Engeström, 1993). An added benefit of this form of exploration and interaction is that students attempt to reproduce what they observe (Bruner, 1997; Piaget, 1952) and may even imitate behaviors through social interactions that are well beyond their own capabilities (Vygotsky, 1978). Bruner and Dewey argue that teachers are the

11

The phrase “traditional” education commonly refers to educational approaches that are more teacher-centered and lecture-based. This is in contrast to “progressive” education methods that are student-centered and concentrate on active learning rather than passive instruction. In this paper, any mentions of “traditional” education follow this line of thought.

37

Chapter Four: Review of Theoretical Perspectives active change agents in this process and are the ones to guide the direction of the experience. More importantly, when these experiences are viewed as social, the role of the teacher changes in such a way that s/he “loses the position of external boss or dictator but takes on that of leader of group activities” (Dewey, 1997/1938, p. 59). The use of educational technologies in the classroom is not a novel concept. In fact, educators have been using technologies such as chalkboards, paper and pen, and newspapers for years (Wedemeyer, 1981). Since the 1980s, however, computers and related devices are what come to mind when the term “educational technology” is mentioned. Pea and Cuban (1998) are enthusiastic about educational technology and believe that a social transformation is underway, one that is “redefining the very roots of learning” (n.p.). They claim that computer technology is at the core of this change, which is providing individuals with access to technology new ways of visualizing materials and shifting the boundaries of time and space. Scholars have argued that the incorporation of technology into the teaching and learning process is complementary to the constructivist approach to education. In independent and joint efforts, Meredith and William Bricken have examined virtual reality from a constructivist perspective (McLellan, 2004). In their research, they found that “virtual reality is a powerful educational tool for constructivist learning” (McLellan, 2004, p. 479). They believe this is because learners can actively become part of the virtual environment and are able to interact with the information. Also, their research shows that in these virtual, flexible, and multidisciplinary environments, learners control the time and scale attributes. Following along the lines of Dewey and Piaget, William Bricken (1990) contends that virtual reality environments can be used to foster experiential learning.

38

Chapter Four: Review of Theoretical Perspectives Computer technologies are attractive because they provide students the opportunity to engage in complex thinking through active learning and autonomy. One example is Papert’s Logo project and the creation of “microworlds.” Students who participated in the Logo project could create a computer-based environment where they could explore the concepts they learned by using programming languages to create and build creatures, as well as directing the movements of their design in this space. In this active and experiential environment, students were able to control their learning and set their own goals. Moreover, in this type of space multiple ways of knowing are acceptable and encouraged. Jonassen (2000) considers this move toward different approaches to knowing to be beneficial and believes that the reason why students have a “deficient understanding of content” is because “they were required to represent what they know in only one way” (p. 281). Technology proponents contend that this is the beauty of projects like Logo; understanding surfaces from meaningful activities rather than from memorizing the correct solution. This approach is in direct opposition to the current educational system, which “insists on the student being precisely right” (Papert, 1993, p. 167). In these technology-rich spaces, teaching and learning are also freed from the constraints and barriers associated with “time-place conditions” (Wedemeyer, 1981, p. 37) – education can happen anytime, anyplace. Moreover, this technological affordance “opens up the doors to greater learner independence by permitting physical distance between teacher and learner” (Wedemeyer, 1981, p. 112). While these and other scholars suggest that technology can have a positive influence on the teaching and learning process, they do not believe that computers alone will save education. In fact, Papert (1993) states that “nothing could be more absurd than an experiment in which computers are placed in a classroom where nothing else has changed” (p. 149). Jonassen (2000)

39

Chapter Four: Review of Theoretical Perspectives agrees and goes so far as to claim that students do not learn from teachers or computers. Instead, Jonassen asserts that both merely foster learning, and he views computers as cognitive tools, which he refers to as Mindtools. According to Jonassen, Mindtools are “intellectual partners that enhance the learner’s ability to think” (p. 17). Computer applications can also be designed to incorporate opportunities for reflection, which “cements the knowledge that learners construct” (Jonassen, 2000, p. 72). Wedemeyer (1981) takes a similar position on the use of technology to enhance learning, but emphasizes that “learning via technology is not merely a matter of substituting technology for the classroom” (p. 111). While Wedemeyer believes that teachers will not be replaced by computers, he does acknowledge that technology is beneficial, in that it can “free faculty members from custodial duties so more of the teacher’s and learner’s time can be given to truly educational needs” (p. 36). In a joint discussion, Pea and Cuban (1998) acknowledge the difficulties associated with the actual implementation of the constructivist approach. These authors address two issues: lack of time and expensive technology that quickly becomes obsolete. Outdated methods of instruction are problematic, as well. Cuban argues that there is a push for teachers to take a constructivist approach to learning, yet they are taught by non-constructivist approaches. And as Pea states, “The worst thing is a graduate course in constructivism that’s taught by lecture” (n.p.). Also, it is not uncommon for there to be a mismatch between the technological capabilities in higher education and those found in many K-12 settings. For example, pre-service teachers taught using the latest computer technology often find what is in their schools and classrooms to be lacking and not equivalent. In addition, technology should not be used as a

40

Chapter Four: Review of Theoretical Perspectives babysitter, and teaching the tools alone is only scratching the surface of learning via computers (Pea & Cuban, 1998). Cuban further expresses concern about the pervasiveness of the “myth” that if children do not get on the computer as soon as possible, at least by 18 months, then their whole future is ruined. Pea agrees that this myth and the fear that surrounds it are problematic and emphasizes to parents of young children that the ‘pre’ in pre-school means before and not preparation. He continues by arguing that there is “way too much of a push for hot housing of kids, and computers are now used as the new guilt vehicle for doing that” (n.p.). It is important to remember that technology alone will not cause a shift from behaviorist to constructivist approaches to teaching and learning. Wedemeyer (1981) suggests that a new way of thinking is needed to move away from the behaviorist models that are firmly entrenched in our educational system. He writes, “If America is on the threshold of becoming a Learning Society, non-traditional learning may be its most genuine ingredient” (p. 219).

Problem Statement The focus of this research can be thought of in terms of the following research problem. Educators, students, and software developers are exploring virtual worlds for teaching and learning purposes. Librarians initiated and continue to guide these efforts, which serve, in turn, as models for other educators. Typically, virtual worlds are designed for entertainment purposes; thus, there are a number of concerns regarding the appropriation of these spaces for pedagogical purposes. To support these efforts, numerous virtual world scholars utilize constructivist learning theory to support their efforts, while at the same time, criticize the use of more traditional, behaviorist approaches to teaching and learning. As a result, the current body of research on

41

Chapter Four: Review of Theoretical Perspectives educational uses of virtual worlds suggests that these environments foster a different type of teaching and learning experience – one that disrupts the physical world classroom hierarchy to create a space that is more democratic and student-centered. However, a small group of scholars such as Bayne (2005) have examined and questioned the repurposing of social technologies in general. Their research typically concentrates on the findings ascertained through ethnographic techniques alone. While data collected through these methods are informative and can illuminate ways individuals appropriate these novel online realms, they may leave many questions unanswered. At present, there is little empirical research on teaching and learning in virtual worlds. Many of the claims touting the educational benefits of virtual worlds are based on anecdotes and self-report data. More work is needed to better understand and fully utilize these spaces. Therefore, this dissertation will begin to fill that gap by combining discourse analysis methods – specifically, structural and functional move analysis – with an ethnographic approach that includes participant observation and unstructured interviews to examine three levels of courses conducted in the virtual world Second Life. The domain under investigation is non-credit continuing education courses for librarians, museum professionals, educators, and others interested in learning and teaching in virtual worlds. This course series was one of the first offerings made available to the public, with the first session starting in 2007. Since that time, a number of educators have moved their courses into SL. Many anecdotally report that the pedagogy of this virtual world support constructivist ideals in that they are more studentcentered. Moreover, these claims suggest that the teaching and learning experiences are radically different from those that take place in physical classrooms, particularly when the pedagogy is teacher-centered and aligned with behaviorist notions.

42

Chapter Five: Method CHAPTER FIVE: METHOD The message articulated by many educational technologists is that new digital spaces create a teaching and learning experience that is different from the physical classroom. Further, they argue that theories that guided educators in the past may no longer be appropriate. Thus, at the broadest level, the question that this research begins to investigate is, “Are the teaching and learning activities in the three-dimensional virtual world Second Life different from those that take place in physical classrooms?” More specifically: a)

In cases where the practices are different, how, if at all, are the educational outcomes different?

b)

In cases where the SL educational initiatives appear to be similar to those carried out in face-to-face environments, is there evidence to suggest that learning took place?

Research Questions The primary goals of this research are to investigate and evaluate the pedagogical practices that are used in virtual worlds such as Second Life. 1.

What are the pedagogical practices in virtual worlds?

2.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of these pedagogical practices?

3.

In what ways do the pedagogical practices change at the different course levels?

4.

In what ways do the pedagogical practices affect the student-instructor interactions that take place in Second Life?

43

Chapter Five: Method 5.

In what ways do the technological affordances affect the student-instructor interactions that take place in Second Life?

According to educational technology proponents, the teaching and learning potential associated with virtual worlds is compatible with constructivist ideals. Therefore, the assumption is that the pedagogical practices in SL will be more student-centered and the role of the teacher will be as a guide rather than as an all-knowing expert. Because of the technological affordances associated with virtual worlds (see Chapter Three and Chapter Seven for more information on virtual world affordances), students can actively interact with information, as well as control the time and scale attributes of the environment. Without leaving their seats, students can adjust their camera view to explore areas beyond the instructional meeting space, change day into night with the click of a mouse, and exchange ideas with individuals from around the world. Some scholars, however, suggest that a teacher-centered approach that draws from behaviorist principles may be needed to build a core set of skills (e.g., Salt et al., 2008). Therefore, it is anticipated that the pedagogical practices will be more teacher-centered in the beginner level courses – not only will the instructors participate more actively in the discussions, especially in comparison to the students, but they will rely on cognitive and logistical messages to foster deep learning and to manage the course. Students enrolled in the intermediate and advanced level courses are expected to know the basics about SL and to be comfortable navigating this virtual world. Thus, the use of more student-centered pedagogical practices is expected in the intermediate and advanced level courses – the participation levels of the students and instructors will be more balanced and less reliant on logistical messages as a course management strategy.

44

Chapter Five: Method In his discussion about learning and an individual’s development, Vygotsky (1978) offers the following concept: the zone of proximal development (ZPD). He defines ZPD as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 86). Following this line of thought, instructors attempting to promote a sound strategy for learning would guide students in SL by posting cognitive messages. This pedagogical approach would enable students to bridge the gap between the known and the unknown. It would also serve as a model for the types of messages that are appropriate in this environment. Students participating in a study conducted by Levin, He, and Robbins (2006) claimed that the fast pace and short time frame of synchronous chat encouraged them think more deeply as they interacted with others in this space. However, scholars such as Perkins (1991) highlight that the cognitive demands are higher for learners in a student-centered environment. Further, Im and Lee (2003/2004) found that the quality of the synchronous discussions did not develop or improve during the duration of the course. These authors suggest that the instructor may need to persuade students to engage in more topic-relevant discussions. As researchers such as Armitt, Slack, Green, and Beer (2002) note, deep learning does not happen spontaneously in a synchronous chat environment; rather it is encouraged through the discussion of the course content. Based on the literature, the instructors may post more cognitive messages than the students in the class sessions to guide the learning process and to model appropriate conversation behavior. Stated another way, a high number of cognitive posts by the instructors in comparison to the students may represent a more teacher-centered pedagogical approach. However, a

45

Chapter Five: Method decrease in the number of cognitive messages posted by instructors and an increase in the number of cognitive messages posted by students might indicate a shift toward a more studentcentered SL learning environment.

Field Site The courses under investigation were conducted in the three-dimensional virtual world Second Life. More specifically, the students and instructors gathered together to participate in the weekly, synchronous, two-hour sessions in the Open Air Auditorium located on Info Island. On occasion, courses were conducted at alternative sites including private classrooms and other educational spaces such as the Macbeth sim. 12 Images that illustrate the look and layout of these educational spaces are included in Appendix A. IRB approval to access these sites was granted on February 23, 2009. Costs associated with this study were minimal, as no travel to the data collection sites was required. 13 However, these were for-fee courses, which cost between $125 and $150 per session. The total cost to observe and collect chat from three sessions was $400. There were times when unstructured interviews were appropriate. Students and instructors from the SL courses were invited to participate in email interviews. Individuals who agreed to participate were sent a list of questions to answer and return to the researcher. In some cases, the researcher had follow-up questions for the participants. These interactions took place via email or through text chat in SL.

12 13

A sim is the Linden Lab software that supports a region in SL. The researcher worked with the GradGrants Center to identify funding sources for this research.

46

Chapter Five: Method Course Sampling The SL courses selected for this study are the joint effort of a research university’s continuing professional development program of study and a library system, both located in the Midwest. This series was one of the first of its kind and was made available to the general public in 2007. Since that time, the coordinators of the series continued to offer courses on a variety of topics. For the Spring 2009 virtual world continuing education series, a total of eight courses was listed on the schedule. Because one of the courses – “Virtual Worlds and Libraries Seminar” – was offered outside the SL client, it was excluded from consideration. Initially, the “Working with a Class in Second Life” course was selected to represent the advanced course level. It was described in the course listings as “not a basic Second Life course.” However, after discussing this research with the SL course instructor and discovering that he planned to use voice chat exclusively in the summer session, this course was excluded. The location of the remaining five courses was SL. Most of the courses were scheduled to last four weeks, but there were exceptions. The “Setting up Your Library or Museum in Second Life: An Applied Approach” course was scheduled for six weeks and thus was not included in this sample. Another course listed for Spring 2009 was “Virtual World Librarianship.” Because two versions of this course were included in the pilot study, additional data were not collected from this particular title. For this study, the researcher investigated the pedagogical changes that occurred as the level of the course increased from beginner to intermediate to more advanced topics. Of the remaining courses listed in this series, “Second Life 101” was the obvious choice to represent the beginner level course (Table 1). Many of the advanced level courses were simply labeled “Experience needed.” However, the “Instructional Tools for Second Life” description stated that

47

Chapter Five: Method this course is designed for individuals who have taken “Second Life 101” or who feel comfortable navigating SL. Thus, it was selected as the intermediate level course. And finally, after discussing my research with the coordinator of the SL courses and Instructor MK, they suggested that “Setting Up an Educational Presence in Second Life” would be a good advanced course choice. Because of the recommendation, this title was selected as the advanced level course. Table 1. Second Life Study Course Information 14 Course Title

Level

Dates

Time

Fri., June 5, 12, 19, 26, 2009

Instructor

Number of Students

Location 15

Second Life 101

Beginner

12-2 PM SL 16

Instructor QE

2-4

Classroom 1

Instructional Tools for Second Life

Intermediate Wed., 5:00June 3, 7:00 PM 10, 17, 24, SL 2009

Instructor IE and Instructor JK

9-11

Open Air Auditorium

Setting Up an Educational Presence in Second Life 17

Advanced

Instructor MK, Instructor BA, and Instructor NS

5-10

Open Air Auditorium

Fri., May 5, 9, 16, 23, 2008

7:309:30 AM SL

14

The instructors of the SL courses selected for this study are beginning to move away from text chat communication modes and toward voice chat. In some cases, voice chat is used exclusively, whereas in others, text and voice are used simultaneously. Because several of the SL instructors mentioned that they planned to use voice chat in Summer 2009, text chat transcripts from the Spring 2009 Series courses listed in Table 1 were acquired for analysis. The results from that text chat analysis were compared to the student-instructor interactions that took place when voice was utilized. 15 The Open Air Auditorium is located on International InfoIsland. The SURL or SL address for this location is http://slurl.com/secondlife/Info%20Island/110/98/33 . 16 SL time is Pacific Time. Therefore, the Second Life 101 course listed in this table, for example, was conducted from 3:00-5:00 p.m. ET. 17 The Setting Up an Educational Presence course scheduled for August 2009 was canceled due to low enrollment. Because the class would not be offered again, transcripts from an earlier course were obtained and analyzed.

48

Chapter Five: Method Descriptions of the beginner, intermediate, and advanced courses included in this research are provided in Appendix B. For the three selected courses, session transcripts from each of the 12 sessions were collected for analysis. Further, observational fieldnotes were collected from the beginner and intermediate courses. Because the advanced course scheduled for August 2009 was canceled, transcripts were obtained from an earlier course. Thus, observations were made based on the transcripts alone rather than in combination with fieldnotes collected during the class period. In addition to observational methods, there are several different interviewing options that the virtual world researcher can employ. Interviews can be conducted face-to-face, in-world, by telephone, and via email or IM. The specific interview procedures used in this research are described in greater detail later in this chapter. In general, however, the primary purpose of these interviews was to support, refute, and/or clarify questions that surfaced following the review of the chat transcripts and the fieldnotes. The enrollment differed by course, but the typical class size ranged from two to eleven students. Because the classes were small, all students and instructors for each course were invited to participate in the study. Furthermore, this small size made it unnecessary to employ a random selection process to identify interview participants. The researcher did not know the physical world names of the course participants. Instead, course participants were known in SL by their avatar name. However, this identifier becomes known and recognizable over time. Some of the SL instructors remarked that individuals in the physical world sometimes refer to them by their SL names. Thus, a pseudonym system was created during the pilot study and used again in the current study to remove personal identifiers. Quotes from interview participants found in this dissertation are identified with pseudonyms to protect the privacy of the SL residents.

49

Chapter Five: Method

Participants The courses under investigation were designed for librarians, museum professionals, educators, and others interested in learning and teaching in virtual worlds. This course series was one of the first offerings made available to the public, with the first session starting in 2007. Because these are continuing education courses for individuals who have likely completed four or more years of college, the SL students are adults who have learned to adapt to different teaching styles. Interest in the educational uses of virtual worlds such as SL has grown over the years (e.g., de Freitas, 2008). However, the courses under investigation were small, and the number of students continued to decline in 2009 itself. In Spring 2009, for example, 10 students enrolled in the Second Life 101 course. In contrast, the Summer 2009 Second Life 101 course had to be canceled and rescheduled twice due to low enrollment figures. The number of students for the Summer 2009 course eventually reached four. While the number of students in the Spring 2009 SL 101 course was higher than the Summer 2009 offering, there were times when only three students attended. The lowest number of attendees for the Summer 2009 session was two. In general, enrollment figures for the Instructional Tools in Second Life course were higher when compared to the Second Life 101 course. For the Spring 2009 and Summer 2009 courses, there were 13 and 11 students, respectively. Like the Second Life 101 course, there were some sessions that students did not attend. The lowest attendance for the Spring 2009 course was six students, and this was reported for the final session conducted in week four. Attendance rates for the Summer 2009 were more consistent across the four sessions, but the number did drop to nine students in the third week.

50

Chapter Five: Method Enrollment was also an issue for the August 2009 Setting Up an Educational Presence course. Two days before the start of the first session, the course coordinator canceled it due to low enrollment. In fact, only one individual had registered. Moreover, one of the instructors for the course was battling health problems, which made teaching the sessions more difficult. By the end of July 2009, an announcement was made that the Virtual Worlds Continuing Education series would be discontinued following the September 2009 sessions. Because the Setting Up an Educational Presence course would not be offered in the future, transcripts from the May 2008 sessions were obtained for analysis. While this course had been offered again in February 2009 and April 2009, the instructors and the course coordinator noted that they did not have transcripts from those sessions. In the end, the number of students in attendance for the May 2008 sessions ranged from a high of 10 students to a low of five students.

Specific Methods of Data Collection Field Observations One type of evidence was collected through participant observation. This approach, which Boellstorff (2008) believes is the “central methodology for ethnography” (p. 68), is often used to help the researcher better understand the object of study. During the observations, the researcher focuses on key events and other occurrences that may contribute to the analysis of the data. Unlike elicitation methods such as surveys and interviews, participant observation does not assume that study participants are able to articulate their experiences or the various aspects of their culture. Rather, participant observation techniques are intended to reveal patterns and connections in a particular culture.

51

Chapter Five: Method There are different types of participant observation: “pure” participation (e.g., navigating the Second Life space), observing participation (e.g., watching a resident land gracefully and asking how she did it), participating observation (e.g., sitting in an open air auditorium and observing a SL class), and “pure” observation (e.g., observing the activities of the SL residents). During the course of this dissertation study, the researcher engaged in all four types of participant observation. Like the other students in the SL courses, the researcher completed assignments, which typically required observation, navigation, and exploration of various SL spaces, such as Virtual Ability and the Macbeth sim. The researcher also observed the process of appearance modification conducted by her peers. Another example of the types of participant observation involved scripting activities. Prior to class, the researcher read and explored the models posted by the instructor. In the class session, questions were raised regarding how to do certain types of scripting. While participant observation techniques can be revealing, researchers should be cautious about making interpretations at the point of observation (Stake, 1995). Yet, this may be unsatisfying to readers who “expect researchers to put themselves into the interpretation, finding meaning that others cannot grasp” (Stake, 1995, p. 62). As these approaches illustrate, participant observation as a methodology does not attempt to create the illusion of detached objectivity. Instead, “ethnographic authority”, or “You were there, because I was there” (Clifford, 1983, p. 118), serves to validate the ethnographic claims. Further, Bayne (2008a) contends that higher education that takes place in an online environment is a visual practice. She continues by noting that the knowledge society in general is one of images (see also Eikones, 2005), including Foucault’s (1979) panopticism. 18 However, 18

The panopticon structure enables one individual to observe the behaviors of many without being seen. This form of visibility creates a controlling system of knowledge and power.

52

Chapter Five: Method most of the discussions surrounding the virtual learning environment concentrate on functionality and affordances; analyses of the visual interface components and the ways in which they contribute to the structure of the teaching and learning are ignored. Nonetheless, virtual worlds, including SL, are visually rich spaces. Due to the complexity of digital spaces, observations conducted in a virtual world may differ from those conducted in a physical space, and researchers need to “rethink how to ‘observe’ activities” (Ruhleder, 2000, p. 9). Ruhleder (2000) takes a direct observation approach of the “learning how to be process” when investigating the students in the LEEP program. 19 When Ruhleder (2000) and her research colleagues began to investigate the LEEP experience, they found that certain types of activities and modes of communication were not visible to them. For example, students were able to use private whispers to communicate with one another. Telephone calls to the technical support staff were hidden from the gaze of the researcher, as well. On the positive side, archives of the data enabled the author to review the class discussion for patterns and certain types of interactions after the fact. Like Ruhleder (2000), this study employed a direct observation approach to view the SL classroom through the eyes of the instructors and students. Following the work of Bayne (2008a), the researcher took into account the role the SL client and interface play in the teaching and learning activities that take place during class time. As Ruhleder found, however, there were aspects of the student-instructor interactions that were invisible to the researcher, such as IM conversations. Also, events that were taking place in the physical world environments of the instructors and students were unavailable to the researcher. However, details of the activities taking place in-world were documented in fieldnotes. Transcribing and reviewing notes collected 19

In 1996, GSLIS at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign launched the LEEP (Library Experimental Education Program) initiative, with its first cohort attending a summer on-campus “boot camp”; the online courses began that fall.

53

Chapter Five: Method through these observations is an important part of the research. In this case, the fieldnotes are not the primary data source; instead, these materials were used to support or refute the findings of the discourse analysis. However, it is important to write and review them upon returning from the field, otherwise the researcher may fail to remember a number of details (Bernard, 1995). Per Bernard (1995), the fieldnotes were scrutinized immediately following the class sessions and organized chronologically, which facilitated the analysis in qualitative data analysis software – Atlas.ti.

Unstructured Interviews Interviews can be conducted in a number of ways: Face-to-face, telephone, email, chat, and IM are a few options available to researchers and were considered for the purposes of this dissertation study. In their examination of interaction systems for formal and informal interviews, Kazmer and Xie (2008) discuss these five alternatives. While email and IM lack the visual cues of face-to-face interactions, these modes of communication allow the researcher to see how interviewees express themselves in writing. Kazmer and Xie also found that asynchronous online interviews, such as those conducted via email, tend to be more grammatically correct and freer from noise (ums and ahs). Responses to the interview questions tend to be more thought out, as well. Other benefits of online interviews include documentation of the data. Online interviews are “double documented,” in that the researcher and the participant have a copy of the interview. This can be beneficial in cases where technical difficulties arise. As with face-to-face and telephone interviews, there are issues associated with online interviews. For example, study participants in-world may suddenly vanish during the interview

54

Chapter Five: Method process. This occurred in the pilot study during a chat interview with one of the instructors after a class session. The instructor answered some questions, moved out of sight, and then vanished. Despite follow-up attempts, the instructor never returned to complete the interview. Conducting interviews through IM can be problematic, as well. In the pilot study, participants were slow to respond and questions were ignored. Technical difficulties can also complicate the research process. For example, it is impossible to interview instructors and students in SL when that virtual world is inaccessible. Once in-world, though, the system often crashes, which disrupts the experience and can result in lost data. Lag time also impacts the ability to move and communicate smoothly, which complicates the interview process. Additional online interview concerns may complicate the research process, as Kazmer and Xie (2008) highlight. For one thing, the format of the different systems may make it difficult for the researcher to manage responses. Also, participants can share the interview and their responses with others, which may taint the data. Coordination and scheduling of online interviews is another issue that may complicate the research for some individuals. Based on their experience, Kazmer and Xie discovered that time zones and scheduling conflicts made attempts to use synchronous media to schedule interviews more difficult than asynchronous modes. Further, these authors found that regardless of whether the medium was synchronous or asynchronous, participant retention was an issue. Participants have multiple drop-out points with online interviews, as opposed to only one in face-to-face and telephone interviews. Another point to consider when interviewing online is the authenticity of the subject. When individuals enter a virtual world, they have two bodies – a corporeal one and a virtual one. Hine (2000) adds to the complexity of this notion of embodiment by describing offline and online worlds as “performative spaces” – places where authenticity of an interlocutor’s identity

55

Chapter Five: Method may come into question. Further, some individuals have multiple identities in-world (Taylor, 1999); individuals who do not want to construct their own can “always buy one” (S. Poole, 2000, p. 40). In SL, specifically, it is not uncommon for residents to have multiple avatars or “alts,” which makes the environment ludic and carnivalesque (e.g., Danet, 1998; Jenkins, 2004; Turner, 1982). Yet, some scholars question the importance of the researcher knowing all the participants’ identities (Taylor, 1999). Hemmi et al. (2009) contend that “the idea of ‘honesty’ is interesting because it associates the possibility of presenting alternative constructions of identity as being morally wrong even when it is virtually possible” (p. 25). While individuals can and do experiment with their identity in virtual worlds, it is difficult for them to maintain a virtual identity that differs from their physical world persona (Turkle, 1997). This type of alternative identity is a type of “cheap fuel”; in other words, it is a “novelty that wears thin fast because of the large amount of ‘psychic energy’ required to maintain it” (Turkle, 1997, p. 205). Researchers are present in these spaces for extended periods of time, which may also make it challenging for anyone to maintain a false identity (Hine, 2000). In an online classroom setting, specifically, anonymity and the notion of an alternative identity are short-lived, because, as Monroe (1999) suggests, “before long, an online persona will be fitted with a Real Life body” (p. 76). Regardless, Hine’s (2000) ethnographic approach was to “interact with the features of their identity” with which she came into contact, rather than attempting to search for the participants’ true selves (p. 144). Moreover, researchers should remember that people who agree to participate in any type of research are not necessarily typical or representative of the study population (Hine, 2000). Privileging the face-to-face over the online is problematic (Hine, 2000; Taylor, 1999), and offline interviews do not necessarily mean more authentic interviews (Taylor, 1999). Even in

56

Chapter Five: Method the case of face-to-face interviews, there are questions as to whether the participants are responding truthfully. Boellstorff (2008) makes a strong case for in-world research and maintains that a physical world component is not necessary. He conducted an in-world, ethnographic study as the avatar Tom Bukowski to obtain the native’s point of view about life in Second Life. He made no attempt to meet actively with the people behind the avatars or investigate what took place in the physical world. Boellstorff further states, “Claims of a methodological chasm between virtual and actual are overstated” (pp. 70-71). In short, while researchers such as Turkle (1997) believe that face-to-face interviews are imperative, several researchers do not share that opinion and have conducted valid interviews in-world without ever meeting the research subjects (e.g., Boellstorff, 2008; Taylor, 2006). As Lyman and Wakeford (1999) argue, researchers who encounter multiple identities must “resist the temptation to adjudicate between them by using the real world as a final arbiter” (p. 364). Some general concerns are associated with interview data, as well. There is evidence to suggest that self-report data are unreliable and, at times, unrevealing (Slater, 2004). Moreover, interpretations of data collected through self-reports can be problematic. For example, Gosen and Washbush (2004) question students who proclaim that learning did occur yet cannot provide specific details to corroborate these statements. However, the use of interview procedures in virtual world studies is not uncommon (e.g., Squire, 2008), and many interviews are conducted primarily through electronic modes of communication. Therefore, for the purpose of this study, unstructured interviews were conducted through email, and follow-up questions were conducted via email or SL text chat. Because of the reported problems and concerns associated with this form of data, the interviews were treated as supplemental information. These data served to

57

Chapter Five: Method clarify and expand upon preliminary patterns and themes that emerged from the discourse analysis. Since the beginner, intermediate, and advanced classes were small, all instructors and students were invited to participate in the interviews. Follow-up invitations were sent to individuals who did not respond to the first call for participation. Attempts to contact individuals who expressed interest in participating but did not provide responses to the email interview questions were made in SL and via email, as well. Lists of the unstructured interview questions for students and the instructors are provided in Appendix C and Appendix D. For the most part, the interviews were conducted via email alone. Follow-up questions were asked through email or SL text chat. There was one case where the participant felt restricted by text-based communication modes and wished to elaborate on her responses using Skype. 20 In total, two instructors and six students completed interviews (Appendix E).

Chat Data Several scholars have noted that there is a paucity of research on synchronous discussions in online learning environments (e.g., Davidson-Shivers, Muilenburg, & Tanner, 2001; Park & Bonk, 2007b). This is true of the time-dependent interactions that occur in virtual worlds, as well. For example, text chat and IM are common communication modes in virtual worlds; however, discourse analysis methods of these text-based interactions have been underutilized. One researcher who has used discourse analysis to examine text-based interactions in virtual worlds is Constance Steinkuehler. While Steinkuehler’s (2004) research is centered on an MMOG, her work is nonetheless informative in examining social virtual worlds such as SL.

20

Skype is Voice-over-IP software that enables individuals to make calls over the Internet.

58

Chapter Five: Method Steinkuehler’s (2004) research is centered on the MMOG Lineage and is guided by learning sciences methodology, which maintains that “cognition is (inter)action in the social and material world” (p. 522). In the gaming community, immersion in these worlds is known as “depth of play,” whereas in the learning sciences, it is referred to as “shared Discourse” (p. 524). The methodology she used to study this MMOG draws heavily from the field of learning sciences and includes cognitive ethnography to obtain what Geertz (1973) refers to as a “‘thick description’ of the socially and materially distributed cognitive practices that constitute the game” (p. 524). Although cognitive ethnography was the primary method used by Steinkuehler (2006) to investigate the world of Lineage, she argues that it is through their participation in a Discourse community that players learn the norms and culture of that community. In her discussion, Steinkuehler makes a distinction between two types of discourse – little d (language-in-use) and big D (the types of roles adopted or acted out by groups of people). Steinkuehler (2004) uses discourse analysis methods to understand Lineage in terms of semiotics, the material world, sociocultural reality, politics, and coherence. In her discussion, she provides examples of the interactions that occur in Lineage and excerpts of those transcripts, highlighting certain features that are present in the discourse, particularly the joint participation of the players, the scaffolding efforts by those who are more experienced in the MMOG, and the availability of information when needed. She also observed through her analysis that failure itself is a form of feedback, although the risks associated with the failure experienced in the world are minimal. To illustrate this method, Steinkuehler (2006) performed a discourse analysis of one statement that she collected in-world: “afk g2g too ef ot regen no poms,” which roughly translates as: “Just a minute. I have to go to the Elven Forest to regenerate. I’m out of mana

59

Chapter Five: Method potions” (p. 42). Her analysis is based on Gee’s (1999) discourse theory involving functional linguistics and big-D Discourse analysis, in an attempt to shed light on language as it is used to enact activities, perspectives, and identities. In this one statement alone, Steinkuehler identified five different structural analysis components: abbreviations, truncations, typographical and grammatical errors, and the use of a specialized vocabulary. This particular utterance was issued while players were attempting to organize objects and other individuals in the virtual world. It not only shaped the activity, but it also illustrated the values and goals of the community. In addition, the use of certain terms during this activity revealed the status of the player as a newbie or a “beta vet.” However, to the best of this author’s knowledge, no other researchers have investigated virtual worlds following Steinkuehler’s approach. Like Lineage, Second Life offers residents text chat and instant messaging modes of communication. The student-instructor interactions that take place in the courses under investigation are typically carried out through synchronous text chat. On occasion, particularly in “emergency” 21 situations, IM may be used. While Steinkuehler used a big-D, little-d discourse analysis approach based on Gee’s work (1999), Herring’s (2004) computer-mediated discourse analysis (CMDA) approach is an alternative technique designed to assess the structural characteristics of the data and the levels of participation among the participants. This can be carried out by analyzing the number of messages that qualify for inclusion, the length of those messages, and how these measures are distributed across participants. In addition, CMDA enables researchers to assess interaction management, social phenomena, and semantic and pragmatic meanings of utterances (e.g., functional moves).

21

One example of an emergency situation in these courses is a student who is unable to locate the Open Air Auditorium. In these cases, the student may IM the instructor for a teleport, which will transfer the student to the auditorium site.

60

Chapter Five: Method One rubric that has been used in previous research on educational uses of text chat employs a functional moves approach. To assess the depth of learning in online courses, for example, Paulus (2003, 2007) and Osman and Herring (2007) examined the functional moves that were present in different samples of educational text chat data. Prior to coding the data, the messages were unitized into functional moves. Paulus (2007) defines a functional move as the “purpose served by a particular part of a message, similar to speech acts” (p. 1328). The functional moves were coded in the Paulus (2003, 2007) and Osman and Herring (2007) studies according to conceptual (i.e., cognitive) and non-conceptual (i.e., logistical, social, and technical) categories. Based on this research, the authors were able to determine that the functional moves most frequently exchanged by participants were cognitive and logistical in nature. Osman and Herring (2007) ascertained that the functional moves varied by role – facilitator or student. While discourse analysis has not yet been widely used to evaluate learning in virtual world settings, specifically, the work by Paulus and Osman and Herring demonstrates that a functional moves approach can be a revealing and rigorous way to investigate claims made about teaching and learning in such online environments. More specifically, the authors of these studies found that this form of discourse analysis revealed the communication patterns of distance learners, as well as the conceptual or social nature of the synchronous chat interactions. Constructivism portrays learning as a highly interactive and student-centered process. The literature suggests that virtual world educational environments, particularly ones that rely on text-based communication modes, dismantle the teacher-centered physical classroom hierarchies and enable students to take ownership for their learning. In theory, students and instructors in virtual worlds have a more equal opportunity to share their perspectives and negotiate meaning.

61

Chapter Five: Method Constructivists argue that it is through these attempts to make sense of these experiences, as well as build on and test their existing mental schemas, that learning occurs. This investigation explored the student-instructor interactions and the ways in which pedagogical practices changed as the experience and comfort levels of the students increased. As stated earlier, virtual world scholars favor a small set of research methods such as experiments and ethnographic approaches. Discourse analysis has been largely overlooked as a viable option. Thus, there are few models to draw from to guide this form of research. Nonetheless, different analytical methods were investigated and tested with small data samples. In the pilot study, for example, Herring’s (2004) CMDA structural analysis technique was used in conjunction with the functional moves approach outlined in the Paulus (2007) and Osman and Herring studies (2007). The participation levels among the students and instructors were assessed through a participation analysis, which highlighted the teacher-centered nature of the SL. An analysis of the functional moves revealed that the SL synchronous discussions have the potential to support deep learning – a larger percentage of the messages were cognitive in nature. This dissertation research expands upon the pilot study to examine the student-instructor interactions in three different SL course levels: beginner, intermediate, and advanced. The SL client can be programmed to log chat and instant messaging data. This arrangement only captures conversations that are within listening distance. In order to collect the data from the SL courses selected for analysis, the researcher must attend each session in its entirety. Alternatively, the transcripts from the sessions must be obtained from an individual who did attend class. For this research, the researcher initially planned to attend 12 two-hour class sessions. Because the advanced class was canceled and transcripts from earlier sessions had to be obtained, the researcher was only able to attend eight two-hour class sessions. The transcript that

62

Chapter Five: Method results from the automatic logging is initially saved in a rich text format. But because extraneous system-related characters are included as well as the text, the data were cleaned and imported into an EXCEL file. After the participation characteristics (e.g., number of words, number of characters, number of messages posted per participant) were analyzed, the messages were unitized into functional moves. At that point, these moves were coded as cognitive, logistical, social, or technical.

Data Analysis As Creswell (1998) notes, the analysis of multiple forms of data is a “formidable task” (p. 139). While numerous applications are available, much of the data collected for this study was stored in two formats: EXCEL and Word. As was described in the previous section, the chat data transcripts were cleaned and imported into an EXCEL file. EXCEL had been successfully used in previous discourse analysis studies conducted by the researcher. The first part of the analysis assessed the structural characteristics of the chat discussions such as the number of words, the number of characters, and the participation levels of the participants. Herring’s (2004) CMDA structural analysis approach was used to guide this part of the research (Table 2). Following the structural analysis, the messages were unitized into functional moves and coded. The four coding categories outlined in the work of Paulus (2003, 2007) and Osman and Herring (2007) – cognitive, logistical, social, or technical – were used to assess the conceptual and non-conceptual functional moves. In addition, charts representing the raw numbers and percentages for each coding category were created to illustrate the research findings. Previous work by the researcher suggests that the SL courses are teacher-centered. Therefore, attention was paid to the SL class activities investigated in this current study that appeared to be more

63

Chapter Five: Method student-centered. Transcripts and fieldnotes were reviewed to determine what activities were used and the types of interactions that were taking place during those sessions. Further, the ways in which these endeavors impacted the student-centered nature of the sessions was examined, as well. A variety of open source qualitative data analysis software packages such as Keynote, 22 as well as for-fee products such as the Ethnograph, NVivo, and Atlas.ti, are available to aid in the organization, analysis, and representation of fieldnote and interview data. Because the qualitative data collected for this study were obtained primarily to support the discourse analysis findings, the data were initially stored in a Word document and analyzed manually. As Creswell (1998) highlights, extensive hands-on work with the data is needed to synthesize the information into meaningful themes and categories. To gain further insight into the emerging patterns, a student version of Atlas.ti, a qualitative analysis tool, was used to code data and build conceptual frameworks. Overall, the qualitative data were reviewed, coded, examined, and analyzed for additional evidence to answer each research question. This process took place as the data were collected throughout the research.

22

http://www.tranglos.com/free/keynote.html

64

Chapter Five: Method Table 2. Data Collection and Analysis Data

Field Site

Analytic Methods

Details

Field participant observations

Open Air Auditorium; classrooms, other SL educational settings

Ethnographic methods

Eight two-hour class sessions

Unstructured interviews

Email; IM and chat may be used for followup questions

Ethnographic methods

All SL courses instructors were invited to participate; students who had posted contact information to the course site were invited to participate, as well. A list of interview participants is outlined in Appendix E.

Chat data

Electronic SL transcripts

Discourse analysis: structural analysis (Herring, 2004); functional moves analysis (Osman & Herring, 2007; Paulus, 2007)

Each two-hour course generated approximately 600 lines of text chat. A total of 12 transcripts was collected. 23

Pilot Study of Data Analysis Methods To begin investigating this topic, the researcher conducted an exploratory ethnographic study of a virtual world librarianship course taught in SL. 24 Contrary to many of the constructivist claims about education in virtual worlds, the findings did not suggest that SL will substantially alter the teaching and learning process. Because the ethnographic findings did not match the virtual world rhetoric, the collected chat data were examined using discourse analysis methods. The goal of that work was to provide evidence to support or refute the results of the ethnographic study. Herring’s (2004) computer-mediated discourse analysis (CMDA) approach 23

Transcripts were also collected from the Spring 2009 SL 101 and Instructional Tools courses. These data were used to support the findings of the sessions conducted in Summer 2009. Thus, a total of 20 transcripts was collected and analyzed. 24 IRB approval was obtained, and permission from the instructors had been granted, prior to my investigation.

65

Chapter Five: Method was used to assess the structural characteristics of the data and the levels of participation among the participants. Taking the work of Paulus (2007), as well as Osman and Herring (2007), on educational chat as a guide, functional moves (cognitive, social, technical, and logistical) were investigated. Chat transcripts from 10 class sessions (six from 2007 and four from 2008) were analyzed. The findings 25 of the discourse analysis study provide empirical support for research that suggests that synchronous discussions have the potential to support deep learning. A large percentage of the messages posted during the 2007 and 2008 sessions were cognitive in nature. Nonetheless, the class discussions were not aligned with constructivist ideals that depict a learning environment that is student-centered and democratic. The instructors posted a considerably higher percentage of messages to the discussion and took longer turns than the students. Even when students are venturing into strange new places, Barnett (2007) argues that instructors must give up control to allow their students to learn; however, it is possible that as Hemmi et al. (2009) discovered in their examination of pedagogical blogging, the SL instructors under investigation attempted to control and constrain the “riskier aspects” of the technology (p. 27). The fact that the SL instructors posted more messages that were longer and more logistical in nature may signify that they were taking up a more authoritative position that recreated the physical classroom hierarchy (e.g., Bayne, 2005). Or, as Wilson (1999) suggests, it is difficult not to reproduce traditional hierarchies even in alternative educational spaces. In addition, Carr and Oliver (2009) found that students and instructors brought their existing classroom expectations and roles into the virtual word; SL was not viewed as a ‘place 25

I was the primary coder for this study, but another individual was trained for the purposes of intercoder reliability testing. Using Holsti’s coefficient of reliability formula, a coder agreement level of 87% was eventually achieved.

66

Chapter Five: Method apart’ (n.p.), a place to challenge the physical classroom hierarchy for these individuals. The findings of other studies have suggested that the class size may impact the structure – the more students in the SL class, the more formal the structure (e.g., Carr, Oliver, & Burn, 2008). In the case of the SL courses included in the pilot studies, the number of students ranged from 10 to 25. As Carr, Oliver, and Burn (2008) note, “while 4 [sic] students might constitute a very small group in a real classroom, it can feel like a sizable group in Second Life” (n.p.). Overall, the research briefly described above did not uncover anything that substantially diverged from teacher-centered, hierarchically-structured educational experiences. However, these findings were based on a small sample; further research involving more data is needed.

Dissertation Study Analysis Three phases of analysis were followed in the current dissertation study. First, eight SL class sessions were observed, and the fieldnotes collected during these courses were reviewed for emerging themes. Second, transcripts from the 12 SL class sessions were captured by the SL system. Once the extraneous noise had been removed from the data, structural characteristics (e.g., number of posts, number of words, number of characters) and functional move topics (cognitive, logistical, social, technical) were analyzed. Finally, responses from the SL students and instructors to a set of unstructured interview questions were examined.

Coding Process, Reliability, and Validity The process of coding the synchronous text chat data was conducted by two coders (the primary researcher and a second coder, who also participated in the coding of the pilot study data). One hundred messages from the June 3, 2009 Second Life Instructional Tools course (or

67

Chapter Five: Method approximately 10% of the messages for that session) were analyzed by both coders. This class and session was selected because it was the first session in the summer series included in this corpus of data. Herring (2004) was consulted for the structural analysis portion of the coding. Examples of the four functional moves categories were extracted from Paulus (2003, 2007) and Osman and Herring (2007) to facilitate the coding process. Together the two coders worked through the functional moves categories with the goal of reaching the level of agreement of 87% that was obtained in the pilot study. A multi-step process was used to establish reliability. First, once the chat data had been cleaned, each functional move was to be coded as cognitive, logistical, social, or technical. While the primary researcher and second coder worked together to analyze the pilot study data, a refresher training session was conducted at the start of this study. Definitions for the four coding categories were provided and discussed during the training session. Next, the two coders worked together to categorize the functional moves until they felt comfortable with the process. For the remaining 90 messages, the two coders worked independently. Using Holsti’s coefficient of reliability formula, a coder agreement level of 91% was achieved. During this process, disagreements did arise and were handled in the following manner. First, the message was highlighted to indicate that the coders did not agree. Next, the coders attempted to reach a consensus in the following manner: 1) The coders stated their reasons for the coding category assigned to the message; 2) There were instances were one coder agreed with the other and modified the code accordingly; 3) In coding situations that were deemed ambiguous, the two coders expanded the functional move definition to eliminate the confusion. This change was recorded, and further coding reflected this modification. An outline of the functional move coding scheme and examples is located in Appendix F.

68

Chapter Five: Method Multiple levels of analysis were used to answer the research questions and to strengthen the validity of the study. Findings of the functional moves coding were triangulated with the responses by the SL students and instructors to the unstructured interview questions. In addition, the fieldnotes collected during the SL class sessions were reviewed. The interview responses and the fieldnotes were read for emergent themes, which were then compared to the results of the discourse analysis procedures.

69

Chapter Six: Findings CHAPTER SIX: FINDINGS SL Pedagogical Practices: Ethnographic Findings The data collected via ethnographic methods from the three courses were examined and analyzed. Fieldnotes taken during the participant observation procedures, as well as responses obtained during the unstructured interviews, were reviewed upon collection. The qualitative analysis software, Atlas.it, was used to organize and analyze the observation and fieldnote data. As a result of this analysis, patterns emerged from the data collected from the three courses. Coding categories were developed and revisions were made to those categories, which revealed striking details that impacted the virtual world pedagogical practices. The following section describes those events, issues, and obstacles that emerged through the ethnographic data collected from the beginner, intermediate, and advanced SL courses.

Beginner Course: Observations One feature of the beginner course that stands out when reviewing the data is that Instructor QE attempted to use a hybrid communication approach to interact with students. At the start of each session, Instructor QE stated that she wanted to use voice chat. She noted that there are some SL concepts that are difficult to convey via text chat, and it is easier to explain some of the more complex terms via voice. However, this never worked out as planned. There was always at least one student who could not hear the instructor’s voice. Despite repeated efforts to troubleshoot the problem, Instructor QE usually abandoned voice for text chat. This was a small class – only four students enrolled – and by the final session, only two students were in attendance. Because the SL system

70

Chapter Six: Findings automatically records the text chat, Instructor QE relied heavily on that mode of communication so the absent students could review the content. This instructor did not outline many stipulations with regards to class communication such as the need for correct punctuation and capitalization, for example. Students could post their messages in any form that was convenient. In addition to the difficulties associated with voice chat, the system itself had technical problems. The connections of students attending the first session crashed repeatedly during the two-hour class. Many times the student was sitting on the classroom couch when this occurred. The students in this course were not the only ones who had this problem; at the end of the first session, Instructor QE disappeared as she was explaining the assignment for the next week. Students waited almost 30 minutes after the session end time, but the instructor never returned. In an email posted two days later, the students discovered that the instructor had experienced technical difficulties and could not rejoin the group. Lag time created problems, particularly when teleporting to other sites, as well. As a result of these difficulties, the pace of the class was rather slow. Because this was a beginner course, the goal was to cover the basics: moving, talking, sitting, visiting places, and tweaking an avatar. Some SL instructors have noted that there are educators who enter SL and consider developing an avatar and shopping to be frivolous and unnecessary endeavors. While acquiring the basics is part of learning how to be in SL, there were times when it appeared that the discussion had gotten off-topic. For example, a student attending the second session lost her hair several times. One time the instructor discovered the student’s hair on the back of the sofa in the classroom. It was also during this session that the instructor spent a considerable amount of time helping this

71

Chapter Six: Findings student dress herself. Shopping, particularly for free items, was an important part of this class, which enabled the students to lose their newbie looks without spending a lot of Linden Dollars. Even though these activities were aligned with the goals of the course, there were times when the instructor revealed that the discussion had not been following the session agenda.

Intermediate Course: Observations In contrast to the beginner course, communication in the intermediate course was more structured. Instructor IE strongly encouraged the use of proper punctuation and was critical of those students who unintentionally used the cap lock key. She claimed that adhering to these rules made it easier to comprehend the discussion. The following exchange between Instructor IE and Student NU in the first session of the intermediate course illustrates this point (Table 3): Table 3. Student-instructor Interaction: Example Role

Message

Student NU

i do, but have lost the feeling of need to capitalize

Instructor IE

Bad NU, no cookie.

Student NU

See, Instructor IE, I used to feel like that. Too many years on the Internet has destroyed it. (See, now I'm using caps again.)

Student NU

But I wouldn't do it in a very formal situation online.

Instructor IE

Capitolization [sic] and punctuation does make you more readable.

72

Chapter Six: Findings Instructor IE used a hybrid approach that included voice and text chat for the first part of sessions one and two. The voice and the text matched word-for-word and were transmitted simultaneously. Prior to class, this “script” was posted to Google Groups, so typically the information presented to the class was not new. Students were instructed not to use voice to communicate with the class at any time, however, even if they had the technical capabilities to do so. In other words, the instructors could use voice and text chat during the class time, but the students could only use text chat. The use of voice chat was intended to help students by providing them with options; they could listen to the lecture, they could read it, or they could do both. In the intermediate course, Instructor IE did use voice to disseminate the lecture material in two of the sessions. However, there were times when voice was a distraction and attempts to remedy problems took time away from the class discussion. For example, Instructor JK had a number of problems with voice – volume overloads, echoes, static. From that point on, he did not use voice during the four sessions. It was clear from their comments that neither instructor liked using voice. Further, the difficulties experienced in the class sessions reinforced some of their objections to this mode of communication. At times, however, these problems may have been preventable. For instance, providing students with instructions in advance on how to set up voice could have resulted in fewer technical difficulties. As was stated earlier, Instructor IE asked that students use text chat to communicate. In the second session, which revisited the use of voice and text chat as instructional tools, the students and the instructors moved into voice as an experiment. Instructor IE wanted to illustrate the way it worked with a group of students. Shortly after Instructor IE shifted back into text only, a student asked a question in voice. This individual was reprimanded for not

73

Chapter Six: Findings using text, and her question was ignored. There were other times when questions and comments posted by students were disregarded. During one session in particular, Instructor JK seemed to be involved in IM conversations with individuals not in class. There were also instances when certain students were told to take their questions offline or move to IM. One example occurred with a student who posted messages related to the problems she was having accessing information via Google Groups. This student left the session early saying she felt stupid and needed a really beginner level course. She did, however, return to class the next week. For the first session of this course, the instructors lectured for about 50 minutes, and then students attended a panel discussion on the topic of Steampunk. 26 Instructor IE's alt – LU – was one of the panelists. While it was interesting to watch a panel discussion conducted in text with a large group, it was not completely clear how it was relevant to the topic of instructional tools. For session three, students were asked to read about the Macbeth sim and visit that space before class. Several students had problems navigating the sim and/or thought they missed important parts. A few asked if they could get a tour in the second half of class. The instructors noted that exploring the sim was part of the assignment, not part of class. Instead, Instructor JK decided that the students would go dancing in the Vannevar Bush Memorial Reading Garden to continue the class discussion. The final session was conducted as a hands-on workshop, and students were given the opportunity to modify SL scripts. However, it was Instructor JK’s third rez day, 27 and time was spent on acknowledging SL birthdays. Because the instructor distributed a copy of

26

Steampunk is a reimagining of technology and society in an era when steam power was used, typically the 19th century. 27 A rez day (sometimes referred to as rezday) in SL is the day the avatar was created or its birthday. This date is based on the born-on date documented in the resident’s SL profile.

74

Chapter Six: Findings the kiosk that students could not alter, much time was spent obtaining the correct version of this inventory item. Prior to this session, a large amount of information on the topic and sample scripts were posted to Google Groups. Yet, the session did not cover many of these scripts. Also, instead of lasting the full two hours, this session concluded about 10 minutes early because Instructor JK had to run to a meeting. This was the final session of the course, which meant that students could not ask the instructors additional questions about scripts.

Advanced Course: Observations While it was not possible to conduct field observations of the advanced course, 28 general observations were made through a review of the transcripts provided by one of the May 2008 instructors. One of the first observations was that this was the only course under investigation where the instructors asked students to introduce themselves. There were a few librarians in the course exploring SL as an alternative way to reach students; however, the majority of students in this course were educators who were members of their institutions’ planning teams, were involved in teacher professional learning initiatives, and/or were in the process of developing a course in SL. A few students in this course had access to their own SL island for teaching and research purposes. Also, there were two students who had backgrounds in human-computer interaction (HCI). In other words, the students in the advanced course were not attending class simply out of idle curiosity, which was the case for several students in the beginner and intermediate courses. Rather, the advanced students had some experience in virtual worlds, including SL, and wanted to obtain specific information that would help them complete their tasks at work. 28

See the Course Sampling section of Chapter Five: Methods for more information about the low enrollments for this course, as well as the discontinuation of the Virtual Worlds Continuing Education series.

75

Chapter Six: Findings The three instructors were librarians who had been in SL since 2006. They had taught SL courses before, but this was only the second time this group of instructors had taught this particular course. The sessions were small – approximately 10 students were enrolled in the course – but by the final session, only four attended class. Even when the class size was small, however, it was not uncommon for the three instructors to be in attendance. In general, as the level of the course increased, so did the number of instructors. For example, the beginner course had one instructor, the intermediate course had two, and the advanced course had three. In the case of the advanced course, the instructors relied on a lecture approach, and students were invited to ask questions at any time. It is worth noting that there were times when the instructor leading the session would ask a question and immediately provide an answer to it. No time was given for students to respond. It was as if the instructor did not want a response but simply used the question to set up the topic for discussion. Students in this course were invited to participate in field trips to other educational spaces. Instead of the instructors lecturing, the individuals in charge of those areas would share their experiences in SL with students and instructors. Many of the students asked about the various ways to acquire land in SL, as well as the advantages and disadvantages to each approach. Other questions were related to the projects undertaken by those individuals, and few touched upon reactions to the SL educational experience by students. Most of the presenters at these other educational spaces used text chat to communicate with the SL students. This was also true of the SL course instructors. There was a single instance where a presenter at one of the field trip sites used voice chat alone. Because several of the students could not get voice chat to work, Instructor MK summarized in text chat what was

76

Chapter Six: Findings being said. It is difficult to listen and type in SL simultaneously, so the students without voice missed part of that class session. A final observation was related to the content of the fourth session of this course. The topic was assessment, and many of the attendees appeared to think this meant course and student assessment. In other words, the learning intentions of the students and the instructors were misaligned. One student, for example, asked if the instructor had assessment experience of teaching a course in SL. The instructor replied that he did not and continued to lecture on assessment of the SL space, which included the number of doors, position of the walls, and usage of the space, just to name a few. As was mentioned earlier, many of the students in this advanced class were coming from the field of education. Nonetheless, the instructor repeatedly referred to librarians and their assessment needs. It was also in this session that the instructor lectured by posting a large amount of text, whereas the students remained silent for the most part. At one point, the instructor noted, “Sorry to be so wordy.” While he appeared to recognize that he was enthusiastic about the topic to the point of excluding the students’ thoughts and comments, this instructor continued to teach the remainder of the class in a similar fashion.

SL Student-instructor Interactions: Discourse Analysis Findings Participation Levels To gain additional insight into the ways the pedagogical practices affected the student-instructor interactions, a more in-depth analysis of the transcripts was conducted. This portion of the research was designed to assess the participation characteristics (i.e., participation levels, average message length, average word length), as well as investigate the

77

Chapter Six: Findings extent to which conceptual and non-conceptual functional moves were used during the class sessions. Overall, the students at all course levels did not typically communicate at the same rate as the instructors (Figures 1-2, Table 4-5, Appendix G). This suggests that the instructors adopted a teacher-centered approach when teaching these SL courses. However, there were times when the students at all three levels participated more actively in the sessions, and the classes appeared to be more student-centered in nature. Figure 1. Instructor Participation Levels

Figure 2. Student Participation Levels

As Figure 1 illustrates, the instructor participation rates differed by level and by session. The beginner instructor’s participation levels remained relatively constant throughout the four sessions, with a total average of 68%. This instructor posted the highest 78

Chapter Six: Findings percentage of messages in the first session and the lowest in the third session. Numerous technical difficulties were experienced in the first session of the beginner course. Students crashed, the instructor “poofed,” and attempts to use voice were unsuccessful. In the third session, students were given the opportunity to create a poster. The student participation patterns for the beginner course were the opposite (Figure 2): the level of posting activity by students was lowest in the first session and highest in the third; 30% and 34%, respectively. The posting patterns for the intermediate and advanced instructors showed more variation. The proportion of posts contributed by the intermediate instructors was the highest in session two. Instructor IE alone posted more than 50% of the messages during that class period (Table 4). The second session was conducted as a lecture followed by a discussion section. It was also during the second half of this class when a student expressed confusion about the use of Google Groups to access the supplementary class materials. This individual became frustrated, stated that she felt stupid, and left the session. In terms of student participation, session two represented one of the lowest participation levels. Table 4. Instructor Posting Averages Instructor

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Total Average

Instructor QE

70%

68%

66%

68%

68%

Instructor IE

38%

52%

8%

9%

27%

Instructor JK

9%

14%

42%

43%

27%

Instructor MK

67%

3%

36%

4%

28%

Instructor BA

0%

18%

8%

0%

13%

Instructor NS

9%

0%

6%

73%

29%

79

Chapter Six: Findings The intermediate session that generated the lowest proportion of messages posted by the instructors and the students was session one. In the second half of this session, 25 guests arrived for a panel discussion on Steampunk. While most of the guests were knowledgeable about the topic and represented themselves in SL as characters based on Steampunk, this area was unfamiliar to many students. Together, the 11 students who attended this session posted 15% of the messages (Table 5), whereas the two instructors posted 47%. The remaining 38% of the posts were contributed by the guests attending the Steampunk panel. Table 5. Student Posting Averages Level/Session

# of Students

Total Percent

Percent per Student

Beginner1

4

30%

7.5%

Beginner2

4

32%

8%

Beginner3

3

34%

11%

Beginner4

2

32%

16%

Intermediate1

11

15%

1.4%

Intermediate2

11

34%

3.1%

Intermediate3

9

50%

5.6%

Intermediate4

10

48%

4.8%

Advanced1

10

27%

2.7%

Advanced2

10

46%

4.6%

Advanced3

10

11%

1.1%

Advanced4

5

16%

3.2%

One intermediate class period that generated a higher level of participation by the students was session three. In that session, the posting behavior exhibited by the instructors and the students was comparable. Session three began in Shakespeare’s Global Theater and 80

Chapter Six: Findings moved to the Vannevar Bush Memorial Reading Garden for dancing and discussion. In both locations, the instructors led a discussion on immersive learning. The participation levels for the students were slightly lower in the fourth session but remained similar to that of the instructors. Students participating in session four were given the opportunity to gain handson experience modifying kiosk scripts. Unlike the beginner and intermediate students, the participation levels of the advanced students exceeded those of the instructors. This occurred in session two when students posted a little more than 45% of the messages (Table 5). In contrast, the instructors for that session contributed 20% of the messages to the discussion. Students attending this session participated in a field trip and met with two guests who posted 35% of the messages. Many of the students attending this session were educators who wanted to know how to set up an educational presence in SL. The two guest speakers had experience creating educational spaces on small parcels of land, as well as on a private island. Because the interests of the students and the guests were aligned in session two, the discussion was an active one. While the advanced students’ participation levels were high in session two, they dropped by at least 30 percentage points in sessions three and four. Session three was similar to session two, in that the students participated in a field trip. However, the guest speaker in session three tried to use voice to communicate with the group, which was problematic. Many students experienced technical difficulties and could not hear or understand most of the discussion. Session four was conducted as a lecture, which resulted in the advanced instructors posting the majority of the messages. In fact, Instructor NS posted almost 75% of the

81

Chapter Six: Findings messages during that class period. Also, the expectations of the students and the instructors for that course did not match. Instructor NS led the discussion on assessment or determining the value of virtual worlds for librarianship. Because many of the students were not librarians, they interpreted the term assessment to mean ways to measure student learning in SL. Overall, the participation levels of the students at the three levels were higher when the instructors integrated active learning tasks into the curriculum. Field trips and hands-on activities encouraged students to actively participate in the discussions. During those sessions, the instructors shifted to the role of a guide. As a result, the instructors’ participation levels during the sessions that included active learning tasks dropped. In contrast, SL sessions involving lectures had the opposite effect. The reliance upon teachercentered activities appeared to squelch the participation levels of the students and made them more passive class participants. Questions can be a way to direct the learning process and impact participation. Instructors and students who ask questions during the sessions may stimulate new directions of thinking, as well as clarify points of confusion that arise. An example of the instructor posting a question and the student responses that followed is presented in Table 6. The number of instructor questions varied by course level. Overall, the advanced instructors asked the fewest questions, whereas the intermediate instructors asked the most – 104 and 118, respectively. Questions from the beginner instructor fell in the middle at 110 (Table 7).

82

Chapter Six: Findings Table 6. Instructor Question: Example Participant

Message

Instructor JK

Can anyone say what they think Immersive learning is?

Student GN

involving multiple senses

Instructor JK

Yes!

Student NQ

trying to create the sense of being there

Instructor JK

Exactly!

Student GN

sense of presence

Student BM

absorption

Instructor JK

You are all way ahead of the curve!

Student DT

Becoming part of the learning experience

To further investigate the instructors’ questions, the numbers were examined by session. Starting with the beginner course, Instructor QE asked the most questions in the third session, at 43. In comparison, she asked only 11 questions in the first session, which was the lowest number of any of the beginner course sessions. Instructors in the intermediate course asked 46 questions in the third session, which was the most for that group. The fewest questions were asked by instructors in the fourth session, at 16. Finally, instructors in the third session of the advanced course asked the fewest questions, at 21. However, the highest number of questions for that group was 31, in the fourth session. The numbers were high in the second session of the advanced course were high at 28, as well. While Table7 shows that intermediate instructors asked the largest number of questions, it is important to remember that there were two individuals contributing to that figure. Because the number of instructors differed by course level, the average number of 83

Chapter Six: Findings questions per instructor was calculated. These averages indicate that the instructor for the beginner course posted the most questions in comparison to her colleagues. She posted on average 18 more questions than the instructors at the advanced level. The number of questions posted by Instructor QE to the beginning group was almost double the figure posted by each intermediate instructor.

84

28 (47%) 113 3.2

104 9.5

10

3

31 (53%)

47 (63%)

28 (37%)

5

10

2

3

15 (38%)

24 (62%)

23 (52%)

10

2

21 (48%)

Advanced Students

Advanced Instructor

85 14.8

118

16 (47%)

2

46 (69%)

2

20 (40%)

2

36 (64%)

2

Intermediate Instructor

2.2

89

18 (53%)

10

21 (31%)

9

30 (60%)

11

20 (36%)

11

Intermediate Students

27.5

110

23 (68%)

1

43 (60%)

1

33 (43%)

1

11 (20%)

1

Beginner Instructor

9.8

127

11 (32%)

2

29 (40%)

3

43 (57%)

4

44 (80%)

4

Beginner Students

Total Questions Ave. # of Questions/ Participant

Session #4 Questions

Session #4 –# Participants

Session #3 Questions

Session #3 # Participants

Session #2 Questions

Session #2 # Participants

Session #1 Questions

Session #1 # Participants

Participant Level

Chapter Six: Findings

Table 7. Instructor and Student Questions by Course and Session

For the most part, student questions were allowed and acknowledged at the three

levels. Table 8 illustrates questions students in the advanced class directed to a guest

speaker. Some students asked more questions than others, and the types of questions varied.

Chapter Six: Findings Students asked more questions in the beginner course than in the intermediate and the advanced courses. In the beginner course, where the student attendance figures ranged from two to four, students asked 127 questions during the four sessions (Table 7). Because there was no co-instructor or course assistant, Instructor QE had to respond to the questions alone. Students in the intermediate course asked 89 questions, whereas their advanced counterparts asked 113. The average percentage of questions asked for students in the intermediate and advanced courses was slightly less, at 45% and 50%, in that order. Table 8. Student Questions: Example Participant

Message

Student TT

how much of the class was used to get students/faculty up to speed in using sl?

Guest Speaker EV

this was for people who worked for businesses that may use SL or another form of virtual world technology

Guest Speaker EV

The supply chain management students had no prior experience in SL

Student RQ

So this is a MBA course?

Guest Speaker EV

Yes, this is a MBA course as all of the courses at my campus are at the Graduate level

A closer investigation of the number of student questions was done by session for each course. In the beginner course, students asked the most questions in the first session, at 44. The number of student questions for the second session of the beginner course was comparable, at 43. Only 11 questions, the lowest number of questions, were asked by these individuals in the fourth session. Students in the intermediate course asked 30 questions in the second session, which was the greatest number of questions for that course. The fewest 86

Chapter Six: Findings student questions for the intermediate course were asked in the fourth session, at 18. Fortyseven questions were asked by students in the second session of the advanced course. This was the most questions asked by this group. The lowest number of student questions, only 15, was asked in the first session of the advanced course. In general, the second session for each of these courses was the one where students asked the most questions. Students also posted the most messages in the second session at the beginner, intermediate, and advanced levels. When the average number of questions per student at each level is calculated, a similar pattern emerges. The students in the beginner course individually asked more questions than their intermediate and advanced level peers. Each student in the intermediate course averaged about two questions throughout the duration of the course. Students in the advance course asked on average one question more than those at the intermediate level. In comparison to students participating in the other SL courses, the students in the beginner course averaged six more questions than their counterparts at the intermediate and advanced levels.

Average Message and Word Length Another set of calculations was made to determine the number of words and characters posted during these courses. The aggregate figures for the words and characters are presented in Appendix H and Appendix I. With this information, the average message length and average word length were calculated (Figure 3-4, Table 9). Across the three courses, the intermediate instructors had the longest message length. These instructors also used longer words in their posts. This suggests that they took longer turns and used more

87

Chapter Six: Findings difficult words in those sessions than did the students or than did the beginner and advanced instructors. Figure 3. Average Message and Word Length: Instructors

Figure 4. Average Message and Word Length: Students

With regard to the message and word length of the students, there is an upward pattern that emerges when moving from the beginner to the intermediate to the advanced levels. The students in the beginner course took shorter turns and used simpler words in comparison to students attending the other levels. In fact, students in the advanced class posted on average almost three more words per message than the beginner students. The advanced students also used longer words in their messages than their peers in the beginner

88

Chapter Six: Findings and intermediate courses. In general, the messages contributed by the students participating in these SL sessions were longer and more complex as the course level increased. Table 9. Average Message and Word Length by Session, Level, and Role Level

Role

Average Message Length (words/messages)

Average Word Length (characters/words)

Beginner1

B-Instructor

7.1

3.9

Beginner2

B-Instructor

6.4

3.9

Beginner3

B-Instructor

6.2

3.9

Beginner4

B-Instructor

5.8

3.9

Beginner Total

B-Instructor

6.4

3.9

Beginner1

B-Student

5.2

4.1

Beginner2

B-Student

4.2

4

Beginner3

B-Student

4.5

4

Beginner4

B-Student

5.9

4.1

Beginner Total

B-Student

5

4

Intermediate1

I-Instructors

11.3

4.7

Intermediate2

I-Instructors

9.6

4.4

Intermediate3

I-Instructors

9

4.5

Intermediate4

I-Instructors

9.4

4.2

Intermediate Total

I-Instructors

9.8

4.5

Intermediate1

I-Students

6.4

4.4

Intermediate2

I-Students

7.8

4.4

Intermediate3

I-Students

7.9

4.4

Intermediate4

I-Students

4.5

4

Intermediate Total

I-Students

6.7

4.3

89

Chapter Six: Findings Advanced1

A-Instructors

8

4.2

Advanced2

A-Instructors

11.1

4.1

Advanced3

A-Instructors

7.4

4.5

Advanced4

A-Instructors

12.2

4.7

Advanced Total

A-Instructors

9.7

4.4

Advanced1

A-Students

8.8

4.4

Advanced2

A-Students

7.4

4.5

Advanced3

A-Students

4.6

4.2

Advanced4

A-Students

8.3

4.5

Advanced Total

A-Students

7.3

4.4

The SL instructors at the three levels typically posted longer messages and used longer words than the students. When examining the message and word length by session, however, there are instances when this pattern reverses. For example, the students participating in the fourth session of the beginner course posted longer messages and used longer words in comparison to the instructor. In general, the message length for students in the intermediate and advanced courses was below that of the instructors. Nonetheless, there were sessions when the students’ word lengths exceeded the instructors’ levels. One session in the advanced course where this was evident was the second session. The word length of the students’ messages in that session was 4.5; the word length for the instructors for that session was 4.1. In the sessions where the students took longer turns and/or used longer words in their posts, these individuals were participating in active learning tasks. The students in the fourth session of the beginner course and the second session of the advanced course were participating in a field trip. 90

Chapter Six: Findings

Functional Moves An analysis of the functional moves used by the instructors and students in the beginner, intermediate, and advanced courses further described the ways in which the pedagogical practices used in these SL-based courses affected the participants’ interactions (Appendix J). Sections of the in-world discussions that illustrate each functional move type are presented in Tables 10-13. Cognitive messages address the understanding of topics discussed during the class session. Messages related to the completion of tasks are categorized as logistical. Greetings, small talk, and closing fall into the social category. Finally, technical message address the use of the communication tools. Table 10. Cognitive Functional Moves: Interaction Example Participant

Message

Instructor JK

If this sim isn't a sunstitute [sic] for reading Shakespeare's play "Macbeth", what else might it be?

Student NU

Seeing it performed.

Student DT

Exploring a segment of the play in-depth

Student BM

experiencing themes via the build characteristics

91

Chapter Six: Findings Table 11. Logistical Functional Moves: Interaction Example Participant

Message

Instructor QE

did you get my tp?

Student CH

yes

Student IM

got it

Instructor QE

i will fly and get you

Table 12. Social Functional Moves: Interaction Example Participant

Message

Instructor MK

how is everyone this morning?

Student BD

Just fine and eager to start

Student RE

Good.

Instructor MK

My name is MK

Instructor MK

MC in real life and I work at XY.

Table 13. Technical Functional Moves: Interaction Example Participant

Message

Student HN

there is some redundancy of sound

Instructor QE

yes

Student HN

kind of chatter-y

Instructor QE

i was hearing an echo too

Instructor QE

CH how are you with hearing voice?

Student CH

nothing

92

Chapter Six: Findings Functional Moves: Beginner Course As was noted in a previous chapter, the messages were unitized into functional moves. These functional moves were then categorized as cognitive, logistical, social, or technical. The results of the coding were calculated by number and by percent (Appendix J). Because the instructors typically posted more messages overall, the results presented in this section have been normalized to represent the number and type of moves each role contributed. Figures 5-8 illustrate the resulting patterns. Figure 5. Beginner Course Functional Moves: Session 1

Figure 6. Beginner Course Functional Moves: Session 2

93

Chapter Six: Findings Figure 7. Beginner Course Functional Moves: Session 3

Figure 8. Beginner Course Functional Moves: Session 4

Starting with the beginner sessions, the instructor consistently posted more cognitive messages than the students. The highest percentage of cognitive messages for the instructor appeared in the first session. Students participating in that session also posted more cognitive messages during this class period than in any of the others. For the most part, the instructor and students in the beginner class posted comparable levels of logistical messages. The exception occurred in the fourth session where more than 40% of the instructor’s postings were logistical. As was noted in an earlier section, students in that session participated in a field trip to SL educational sites such as the NOAA’s Tsunami Demonstration, the Land of Lincoln, and the Sistine Chapel. The instructor had to help students teleport to these sites and direct them to a common meeting spot. 94

Chapter Six: Findings One type of functional move that stands out for the students is the social category. In all four sessions, students were more social than the instructor. The high frequency of social messages by the SL students is consistent with the findings of Osman and Herring (2007) and Paulus (2007). The percentage of social messages posted by students was highest in the second beginner session, at almost 50%. During this class period, the instructor introduced the students to two of her alts. Instructor QE created these alts to demonstrate that SL residents do not have to spend a lot of money to have attractive avatars. While technical problems plagued the beginner sessions, the frequency of technical moves was low, particularly in comparison to the other types of conceptual and nonconceptual messages. The figures for the instructor’s technical posts range from 2-4%. Technical messages were also less common for the students; however, their frequencies were higher than the instructors’ and ranged from 7-17%. Technical difficulties occurred during the first and fourth sessions, which may explain why the student levels of technical messages were higher during those class meetings.

Functional Moves: Intermediate Course The functional moves patterns that emerge for the instructors and students at the intermediate level follow similar trajectories (Figures 9-12). This is most evident in Figure 11, which illustrates the patterns from session three. While not as closely aligned as session three, the functional moves for session four (Figure 12) shows a similar posting pattern for the intermediate instructors and students. Both groups even posted a similarly high frequency of logistical messages during this session. The structure of this session was somewhat different from the others; Instructor JK referred to it as a hands-on playshop.

95

Chapter Six: Findings Students were given the opportunity to work with the scripts included on the kiosk that was placed in their inventories. In order for students not to edit the work of their fellow classmates, they had to stand in a circle and open the kiosk in a space directly in front of them. Ten students attended this session, so the available editing space was tight. Figure 9. Intermediate Course Functional Moves: Session 1

Figure 10. Intermediate Course Functional Moves: Session 2

96

Chapter Six: Findings Figure 11. Intermediate Course Functional Moves: Session 3

Figure 12. Intermediate Course Functional Moves: Session 4

Interestingly, the frequency of cognitive messages was lower for the instructors and the students in sessions three and four. In contrast, the instructors posted a high proportion of cognitive messages in session two, and more than 50% of the messages posted by students during that session were cognitive, as well. Nonetheless, the frequency of cognitive messages contributed by the students was at its highest in session one. As in the beginner course, the students in the intermediate session were more social than the instructors. The instructors were most social in session one, whereas the frequency of social messages peaked for the intermediate students in the fourth session. Also similar to the beginner course are the level of technical messages posted by the intermediate group. 97

Chapter Six: Findings The proportion of technical messages posted by the intermediate instructors ranged from 36%, while students in this group were slightly more active posters of technical messages, at 4-10%. In the second session, where 10% of the student messages were technical, the students experienced difficulties experimenting with voice. A few students also had difficulty accessing external class materials, such as links to websites.

Functional Moves: Advanced Course The instructors and students at the advanced level exhibited comparable functional move styles throughout the four sessions (Figures 13-16). Unlike the beginner and intermediate students, however, there was one session – session two – when the frequency of cognitive messages posted by the advanced students exceeded the instructor levels by approximately 30 percentage points. The level of logistical messages contributed by the instructors was high in session two, as well. In this session, students teleported to in-world educational sites to meet with individuals who had experience setting up an educational presence in SL. As for the advanced instructors, they posted the highest level of cognitive messages in the fourth session, which was structured as a lecture. Figure 13. Advanced Course Functional Moves: Session 1

98

Chapter Six: Findings Figure 14. Advanced Course Functional Moves: Session 2

Figure 15. Advanced Course Functional Moves: Session 3

Figure 16. Advanced Course Functional Moves: Session 4

For the most part, the students were more social than the instructors during the advanced course. The exception occurred in session two. In addition to contributing high 99

Chapter Six: Findings frequencies of logistical and social messages during the second session, the instructors’ postings were also more technical. As was the case with the beginner and intermediate courses, the frequency of technical messages is low in comparison to the other message types. However, that figure spikes to almost 30% for students in the third session. The third session of the advanced course was similar to session two, in that the students participated in a field trip. While text chat was the communication mode selected for sessions two, the guest speaker participating in session three insisted on using voice. Several students experienced technical difficulties with voice during this class period and communicated those complications via text chat.

Functional Moves: Instructors While the instructors taught course at different levels, their use of functional moves exhibited similar characteristics (Figures 17-20). Cognitive messages were typically the most used functional move type, followed by logistical, social, and technical messages, in that order. The exception appeared in session four. In that class period, the beginner and intermediate instructors posted fewer cognitive messages and a greater number of logistical messages. The advanced course instructors followed the pattern seen in the first three sessions, with cognitive messages being the focus. In the fourth session, the beginner class participated in a field trip, the intermediate group manipulated scripts during a hands-on workshop, and individuals in the advanced session attended a lecture. Field trips were part of the advanced course curriculum in the second and third sessions. Nonetheless, the functional moves employed by the advanced instructors resembled patterns found in sessions one and four. When the pedagogy used by the

100

Chapter Six: Findings advanced instructors changed, the characteristics of their functional moves remained relatively constant. In contrast, the beginner and intermediate instructors appeared to alter their instructional tactics when conducting a less teacher-centered class session. Figure 17. Functional Moves by Instructors: Session 1

Figure 18. Functional Moves by Instructors: Session 2

Figure 19. Functional Moves by Instructors: Session 3

101

Chapter Six: Findings

Figure 20. Functional Moves by Instructors: Session 4

Functional Moves: Students The use of functional moves by the students followed similar trajectories in the first and second sessions but deviated in the third and fourth (Figures 21-24). For the most part, the advanced students posted a higher frequency of cognitive messages when compared to their beginner and intermediate peers. The exception occurred in session three, when the level of cognitive messages dropped. In session three, the advanced students visited an educational space and encountered numerous technical difficulties while communicating with the guest speaker. The intermediate students used a high frequency of cognitive messages, as well. That level dropped, however, in the fourth session when students participated in a hands-on scripting workshop. The use of cognitive messages by the beginner students did not deviate substantially during the duration of the course. Also, teacher-centered sessions such as session four of the advanced course did not appear to hamper the learning potential – the students continued to post a high frequency of cognitive messages.

102

Chapter Six: Findings In general, patterns for logistical and technical messages were similar at the three levels. The frequency of logistical messages strayed from this trend for the intermediate students during the fourth session involving the workshop. While the data suggest that students were focused on the class material, they were also very social. The frequency of social messages at the three levels was high, but typically, the social levels of the beginner students exceeded those of the intermediate and advanced students. In the third session, the proportion of social messaged posted by the advanced students was similar to those in the beginner class. Intermediate students in the fourth session also displayed social characteristics that were similar to the beginner students. Figure 21. Functional Moves by Students: Session 1

Figure 22. Functional Moves by Students: Session 2

103

Chapter Six: Findings Figure 23. Functional Moves by Students: Session 3

Figure 24. Functional Moves by Students: Session 4

Overall, the results suggest that the instructors and students at the three levels remained on task throughout the sessions. Cognitive messages were frequently contributed by the participants, and there were instances where the student levels approached or exceeded those of the instructors. In the intermediate course, there were two sessions were the frequency of cognitive messages was comparable for the students and the instructors – session two and session three. The students participating in session two of the advanced course, however, posted a higher level of cognitive messages than the instructors. This suggests that the discussions become more advanced as the course level increased. Compared to the interaction patterns of the beginner and advanced course participants, the 104

Chapter Six: Findings ones exhibited by the instructors and students in the intermediate course are similar. While a direct assessment of student learning in SL was beyond the scope of this study, the cognitive patterns imply that deeper learning may have occurred in the intermediate and advanced courses. The participants may have been focused on the course content, but their interactions were also social. For the most part, the students at the beginner, intermediate, and advanced levels were more social than the instructors. Moreover, the students at the beginner level were more social than their intermediate and advanced counterparts. The data also indicate that the students became less social as the course level increased. Overall, the students participating in the upper level courses contributed more cognitive messages and fewer social messages to the sessions in comparison to the patterns found at the beginner level.

105

Chapter Seven: Discussion CHAPTER SEVEN: DISCUSSION Overview of Findings Research Question 1 What are the pedagogical practices in virtual worlds? On the whole, the techniques many of the SL instructors utilized were teacher-centered in nature. Lectures, particularly ones based on a pre-written script, were the most common instructional practice. The instructors could prepare the material in advance and cut-and-paste that information into chat, which made it an easy pedagogical practice to implement. This approach also enabled the instructors to convey large amounts of information quickly. However, as individuals investigating MUDs for educational purposes found, lectures in SL may be less effective than active learning practices. When the SL instructors integrated field trips and handson activities into the curriculum, the students’ participation levels increased. This studentcentered approach was more chaotic and time consuming, but it enabled the instructors to respond to the students’ information needs and encouraged student participation. In an examination of web-based pedagogical practices, Jung (2001) identified three different variables: 1) a learning variable, 2) a teaching variable, and 3) a communication variable. The data collected from the SL courses under investigation also revealed evidence of these three variables in action (Table 14). Starting with the learning variable, the SL students were autonomous, in that they were not required to attend these three continuing education classes. In addition, they were geographically dispersed from the other students and the instructor. Students in these courses were also given the opportunity to be actively involved in their learning by participating in session activities and by completing exploration-

106

Chapter Seven: Discussion experimentation assignments in SL. However, no grades were given to students for their work, and certificates were not distributed upon completion of the course. Collaboration is another facet of the learning variable that was present in these courses. For example, Instructor QE “poofed” while giving students in the beginner class their assignment at the end of one session and was technically unable to return to class. Even though they were newbies and could have left class at any time, these students worked together to find answers to questions they had regarding the class material. They also shared resources with each other and offered tips that had worked for them. Table 14. Second Life Pedagogical Practices 29 Pedagogical Variables

SL Practices

Learning variable

Autonomy, collaboration

Teaching variable

Content expandability, content adaptability, visual layout

Communication variable

Interaction – academic, collaborative, interpersonal

The teaching variable includes the following features: content expandability, content adaptability, and visual layout. The SL environment is structurally flexible, and instructors can provide experimentation opportunities, for example, that may not be possible for students to explore in the physical world classroom. One instance of this occurred at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Meteora site. There, the students in the beginner course were able to experience a tsunami in real time and witness the aftermath of this type of

29

Adapted from Jung’s (2001) theoretical framework for pedagogical features of web-based instruction.

107

Chapter Seven: Discussion natural disaster. In addition, students in the advanced class were able to experience Harlem, New York during the era of the Harlem Renaissance when they visited Virtual Harlem. Another example can be seen in the exploration of Shakespeare’s play, Macbeth. SL students in the intermediate course were asked to read about Macbeth through links posted to the class’ Google Groups forum. These materials were also sent to students via email. Following that review of the text, students were asked to visit the reimagining of Macbeth in SL and become immersed in the look and feel of the play. Along with components of the visual interface, students were able to hear sounds associated with the interactive scenes. In the case of these SL courses, content was expanded and adapted within and beyond the virtual world space. During the next class session, which was conducted in Shakespeare’s Global Theater area, the students and instructors were able to share their reactions to the virtual play and discuss the potential of this type of experiential educational experience. All of these educational spaces are visually rich, three-dimensional environments. The third pedagogical feature found in SL is the communication variable. Communication between and among students and instructors played a substantial role in the courses at all three levels. While the text and voice chat tools that fostered this form of educational discourse were in the forefront, there were others available in SL, as well as out-ofworld, to assist instructors in carrying out their pedagogical practices. A list of the instructional tools is outlined in Appendix K. It is important to note that other tools may be available for use for SL teaching and learning purposes. However, the tools noted in the appendix, as well as those listed in Table 15, are ones employed during the three courses included in this study. After reviewing these tools and the ways in which they were used during the 12 class sessions, seven broad groups emerged that were useful for categorization purposes. They include classroom

108

Chapter Seven: Discussion information objects, gifts, out-of-world resources, SL educational spaces, SL environmental tools, social network resources, and wearable information objects. Table 15. Second Life Instructional Tools Categories Instructional Tools Categories

SL Examples

Classroom information objects

Experiencing a poem using notecards and soundscapes.

Gifts

Placing an information kiosk in a student’s inventory.

Out-of-world resources

Providing a URL to a book about SL.

SL educational spaces

Taking a tour of Vassar College’s rendition of the Sistine Chapel.

SL environmental tools

Using the SL search feature to locate a musical performance.

Social network resources

Referring students to an avatar who manages an educational island in SL.

Wearable information objects

Coming to class as a ferret when discussing the importance of appearance for educators in SL.

As indicated in Table 15, some instructors attempt to create an experience in their classroom through the use of information objects. One example was created by Guest Speaker QG, who built a structure on a small SL parcel of land that would enable students to experience a poem through notecards and soundscapes. The students could read the poem and listen to it simultaneously. There were also times when an instructor would set out a kiosk that included an array of resources. Clicking on different portions of the kiosk would enable the students to access materials such as novels, stories, movies, and URLs to out-of-world resources, just to name a few. While they were not used during class per se, sandboxes, or a piece of land set aside for

109

Chapter Seven: Discussion residents to practice their building skills, were recommended to students who asked where they could practice their newly acquired skills. Gifting was a practice used by many of the instructors. In the physical classroom, an instructor may distribute physical handouts to the students. A similar practice takes place in the SL classroom but with a slight variation. Instead of handing a piece of paper to a student, the SL instructor places information items in the students’ inventory. Some of the information items that were commonly distributed in sessions at the different levels include notecards, landmarks, and the teaching version of kiosks for students to “play” with. Textures, other images, and scripts were gifted to individuals in the class, as well. Because appearance was a key discussion point in the beginner course, for example, clothing items, hair, and heads up displays (HUDs) were commonly given to students. In SL, these gifts can be given to residents when they are in-world and even when they are not. For students who are not in-world when an item is placed in their inventory, a blue box will appear at the top of the computer screen the next time they log in asking them to accept or discard the item. The gifting practice did not take place solely in-world. One item that was shared with students via email or through postings to an outside discussion forum such as Google Groups or the class Moodle 30 was the course transcripts. It was common for the beginning minutes of class to include questions regarding the transcript: Did students receive a copy of the transcript? Were points covered in that discussion unclear? Are there topics noted in the transcript that should be covered in greater detail? There are a couple of ways to capture the transcript: 1) a communication preference can be set to automatically save a copy of the text chat and IM to the individual’s computer; or 2) at the end of the session, individuals can copy the text in the chat 30

A Moodle is a free, open source course management system (CMS). Because it is difficult to share certain types of information in SL, some educators use a CMS such as Moodle as a supplement to the in-world experience. More information about Moodle is available at http://moodle.org/ .

110

Chapter Seven: Discussion history box, paste it into a word processing document, and save it. Instructor QE noted that she typically copied the session for students instead of relying on the system save it to her computer. This instructor also mentioned that she spent time deleting the noise from the transcript – the comings and goings of friends, unrelated IMs, and typographical errors. Thus, the students in Instructor QE’s beginner course received a transcript that contained the course material and nothing more. This transcript cleaning process was unique to Instructor QE’s course; the other instructors simply sent the captured transcript in its entirety. In-world gifting was just one way to dispense information to students. During the class sessions, references to out-of-world resources were common, as well. While they typically took the form of URLs that were noted in the text chat space, these references pointed to a variety of resources. Rather than describing a topic or an assignment at length, the instructors would direct students to outside resources. In the intermediate course, for instance, the URL to specific sections of the Google Groups site was frequently posted during the discussions. There are different preferences regarding opening a URL inside SL or outside SL. The intermediate instructors preferred opening the URL outside SL. Instructor JK explained that the current SL open internal browser has a bug, which is supposed to be fixed in the next version. Also, links to information about guest speakers, educational projects, and out-of-world communication devices were disseminated to students. In the intermediate and advanced courses, an external courseware site was used to manage their information. Instructor JK described the difference between courseware and SL in the following manner: Second Life has miserable information management. If you want to communicate something to someone in Second Life well you can tell them in chat …you can

111

Chapter Seven: Discussion send a notecard, but after you send them 30 notecards, how are they going to keep them separated out. Because there were no assignments and required readings, the instructors for the intermediate class eliminated the Moodle and replaced it with Google Groups. This created unforeseen problems, in that some of the students were not familiar with this forum and had difficulty using it. In addition to teaching students about instructional tools in SL, the instructors for the intermediate course found themselves teaching students about Google Groups, as well. The advanced instructors took a different path and relied upon the Moodle to post transcripts, continue class discussions, and make available additional resources. A few of these students had problems accessing the Moodle and were directed to the course coordinator – the person in charge of that course management system – for assistance. Some of the resources highlighted by the instructors during these SL sessions were articles, blogs, books, definitions, videos, and wikis, just to name a few. Instead of describing the mechanics of how to present a YouTube video in SL, Instructor JK posted the URL to a how-to tutorial on Vodpod. Further, there were times when the students exchanged information about external resources. Instructor QE experienced technical difficulties at the end of the first session of the beginner course and “poofed.” Instead of leaving, the students shared information they found about SL video tutorials available on YouTube and the SL website. For the most part, however, it was more common for the instructors to point students to external resources. Many educators, particularly in higher educational settings, would not consider their physical world classroom to be an instructional tool. The instructor may be able to move to a different room or reposition the tables and chairs, but not many changes are made to the room itself. As Instructor NS observed, “In real life, you pretty much have to take the built

112

Chapter Seven: Discussion environment as you receive it.” That is not the case in SL. The residents have control of the virtual space; instructors can reconfigure their entire SL space as needed or simply adjust a small detail about the learning experience. Student BI said it this way: “Your instructor can make the physical classroom look like whatever he/she wants, if he/she owns land, and if not you can have a class anywhere.” Because of these and other possibilities, educators such as the individuals who taught the SL courses included in this study believe that the virtual environment itself can be educational. In the beginner and the advanced classes, students had the opportunity to visit the Land of Lincoln (Appendix A), which is a SL island that illustrates the different aspects of Abraham Lincoln’s life. That space was created for the bicentennial of Lincoln’s birth and was returned to the builder’s inventory at the end of 2009. Students in the advanced class also visited Virtual Harlem – a representation of that section of New York City during the 1920s and 1930s – which is designed to enable students of the Harlem Renaissance to experience that literature in a historical context. A simpler example of the environment as an educational space can be seen in the use of Shakespeare’s Global Theater as a meeting location for discussing the Macbeth sim. While not designed for educational purposes as such, there are SL-specific tools that facilitate the teaching and learning process. Text chat, IM, and voice are part of the SL system and can be used to assist individuals in navigating the virtual world interface. Group notices, which appear as a blue box upon logging into SL, enable residents to share information with members of a group. It is not uncommon for a copy of this notice to be sent to the members’ email account, as well. Also, the SL menu system can enable residents to control their teaching and learning experience. For example, one of the field trips for students in the advanced course was to a location designed to illustrate the possibilities associated with a small parcel of land.

113

Chapter Seven: Discussion Because it was late night at that location, Guest Speaker QG requested that visitors use the SL World menu option, environmental setting, to set their lighting to midday so everyone could see better. Not all the menu options are obvious to the SL newbie. In fact, they may remain hidden from these individuals. Instructor QE showed students in the beginner course how to add the Advanced menu category by using the Ctrl, Alt, Del keystrokes. This menu option enables residents to disable camera constraints, which allows them to move the camera closer or farther than the default. Rebake textures is another advanced option, and it is helpful when residents take off something yet it is still visible. In the beginner course, Student CH experimented with rebake textures in hopes of eliminating a removed scarf that remained visible to some, but not all, SL residents in the area. This option usually fixed that type of visual discrepancy. The Advanced menu also included HUD information, clearing group cache, and debug settings, to name a few. One SL-specific tool that was mentioned primarily during the beginner sessions was SL search. Instructor QE noted that she frequently used this feature but admitted that it is not the best search engine. SL search was one thing Student BI liked the least about this virtual world. She said, “I have library training, so not having a great search function is always frustrating for me.” The All option searches through all the SL databases and sorts the results by relevance. Keywords for the search feature are assigned by the site poster. In addition to searching the entire SL database, there are seven additional tab categories that enable residents to do more fine-tuned searches. Classifieds, Events, Groups, and Land Sales are a few of the tabs available. According to Instructor QE, the Events tab is useful in finding educational events. She also noted that the Land Sales option might be of interest to residents wishing to buy land; however,

114

Chapter Seven: Discussion Instructor QE added that buyers should be cautious, because some sellers are slum lords – SL landlords who disturb their tenants with unprofessional and questionable business tactics. The instructors included in this study had been involved with SL for several years and had formed extensive social networks to resources and residents. In terms of resources, instructors may share SL location-based linking or SLURLs with their students. Clicking on a SLURL will take individuals directly to that location in SL. This is helpful when instructors want students to meet at a particular location. Instead of taking class time to teleport individual students to the class site, the instructor can post the SLURL in advance, enabling students to transport themselves to the location. Instructor QE also posted SLURLs for places she wanted students to visit prior to the next class, such as Virtual Ability. This type of activity enabled the students in her beginner course to practice using SLURLs to transport themselves to different inworld locations. Further, sites such as Virtual Ability were designed to help new residents cultivate their SL skills. Referring students to in-world “experts” is another example of social network resources. One instance occurred in the intermediate course when students were playing with the scripts included on the information kiosk. Instructor JK acknowledged the work of the script author, who provided the scripts for free. Because it is not uncommon for scripts to cost $10,000L, 31 Instructor JK asked that students thank the author if they employed the scripts at their own institutions. Another example of instructors referring students to other avatars was found in the advanced class. At the start of the final session, a student had several questions about renting SL spaces for instructional purposes. One instructor mentioned that she along with another SL resident was conducting a workshop on getting started in SL, and she invited students who were 31

The value of the Linden Dollar varies over time, as is the case with physical world currencies. On September 14, 2009, the average exchange rate was $262.70L per $1U.S. So, $10,000L would equal about $38 U.S.

115

Chapter Seven: Discussion interested to join the group. Also in that session, a student asked about ways to convince skeptical decision-makers at her institution that there are educational benefits associated with virtual worlds. The instructors noted that Instructor QE was the person to contact for “selling” SL tips. These are merely a few of the social network resource examples that occurred during the SL sessions at the three different levels. Wearable information objects are another type of instructional tool, and they come in a variety of forms. They include items such as costumes and other apparel pieces. An example of the evolution of an avatar’s appearance from one week to the next can be seen in Appendix L. Appearance was important to Instructor QE, who admitted to the students in the beginner class that she loved to shop in SL. While her appearance changed each week and sometimes during class time, this instructor believed looking professional was important. Therefore, she typically arrived to class wearing some type of business casual-type of outfit. Instructor QE frequently modified her professional look, yet the intermediate instructors were more playful with their appearance. During a discussion about using appearance as a teachable moment, Instructor JK transformed himself into a ferret. For a class on griefing, 32 Instructor IE mentioned that she arrived to class dressed for war. To these instructors, role playing was very much a part of their teaching and learning repertoire. Instructor JK commented that the creative possibilities in SL were a natural extension of her childhood experiences at renaissance fairs. In addition to changing the appearance of an avatar, SL residents may have multiple avatars that serve different instructional purposes. Two of the instructors – Instructor QE and Instructor IE – used their alternate avatars (i.e., alts) during the class sessions. Instructor QE used two of her alts – one male and one female – to show students ways to dress an avatar without 32

Griefing is an action that negatively disrupts the in-world experience of another resident. The term comes from the idea that this form of harassment typically causes grief.

116

Chapter Seven: Discussion spending any money. When Instructor IE changed from instructor to panel discussion moderator, she switched to her alternate avatar. The alts in both of these examples looked nothing like the avatars these individuals used when teaching SL classes. While the students in these sessions typically did not alter their appearance during the session drastically, they did make changes from one session to the next. In some sessions, the students shared their ideas about the use of wearable information objects for educational purposes. One student in this class was in the process of planning a SL function that would profile a particular novel. To add to that event, she wanted her avatar to resemble the main character in the novel the group would discuss. Other wearable information objects include devices such as HUDs and foreign language translators. In the beginner course, a student and the instructor wore HUDs that enabled them to alter their movements. The HUD allowed these two to stand up and walk in a way that differentiated them from SL newbies – their walking style was efficient and smooth. Also, Instructor IE used a HUD to communicate with the students in the intermediate course via text chat and voice simultaneously. Because this hybrid form of communication was seamless, students asked the instructor if she was a very fast typist. It was also in this class that the topic of foreign language translators was introduced. The SL courses included in this study are open to individuals from around the world. Yet, all the students who participated in the courses included in this study spoke English. Therefore, the instructors simply illustrated their use. Also as the instructors emphasized, the translator devices only work when residents use text chat; there is no voice equivalent at the time of this writing. A wide assortment of techniques can be used in virtual worlds to foster these educational methods, and their use can change depending on the topic and the situation. Hayes (2006) reports that the average age of individuals in SL is 32. Kzero’s (2009) data suggest a slightly higher

117

Chapter Seven: Discussion average age of 33. And, according to key metrics released by Linden Lab (2008), almost 50 percent of SL residents are 35 years of age or older. A study by Choi (1989) that utilized Kolb’s Learning Styles Inventory found that librarians between the ages of 30 and 40 preferred concrete examples. While demographic data were not collected from the individuals who participated in this study, these courses were designed by librarians for working professionals. In general, the courses were taught by librarians, as well. Thus, these demographic factors may have influenced the pedagogical practices utilized by the SL instructors. Further, Jonassen and Hodges (1982) contend that the cognitive styles of library education students are more aligned with learning through reading words than through hearing them. These authors emphasize the importance of reading rather than listening for library students. The SL instructors may have been aware of the research on cognitive styles of library students and adjusted their pedagogy to emphasize the dissemination of information through text rather than voice. Overall, a variety of pedagogical practices occur in virtual worlds. While the ones presented in this section were commonly found in the sessions at the three levels, some practices were more effective than others. The next section discusses the strengths and the weaknesses of the pedagogical practices used in the beginner, intermediate, and advanced SL courses.

Research Question 2 What are the strengths and weaknesses of these pedagogical practices? Each pedagogical practice identified in this study had strengths and weaknesses. SL was designed to encourage interaction; thus, active learning approaches such as hands-on activities gave students experience using virtual world tools and resources. Students who participated in

118

Chapter Seven: Discussion these activities gained knowledge they could share with their peers while they acquired SL skills. Student and instructor questions served to encourage and guide this sharing process. It also enabled students to reflect upon their experiences, as well as compare their struggles and successes to those of their classmates. Some scholars also suggest that these in-world experiences transfer to other worlds and even to the physical world (e.g., Brown & Thomas, 2006). While the literature claims that educators should move away from teacher-centered approaches such as lectures, these pedagogical practices have their own strengths. For instance, pre-written lectures made it possible for students to review the class material in advance. Instructors who favored lectures were able to cover a large amount of information quickly and ensured that the class time remains on-topic. Instead of typing, instructors using pre-written lectures cut-and-pasted their lecture materials into the SL chat space. Instructors using voice or a hybrid approach were able to read their lecture to the students. In addition to strengths, each pedagogical practice utilized in these SL had its weaknesses. Because no grades or certificates were given for completion of these courses, the instructors noted that it was difficult to get them to complete assignments. For some students, particularly those who lacked certain SL skills, it was difficult to complete assignments independently. Student-centered pedagogical practices also required a substantial amount of class times. Much of what takes place in SL involves communication. In the SL courses investigated in this study, text-based communication media were used to support the educational activities. Once users log into SL, they are able to use IM and/or text chat to communicate with others. Communicating via text may require typing skills, but voice requires additional equipment such

119

Chapter Seven: Discussion as microphones and speakers. Several students and instructors noted that voice was a more “natural” form of communication. Because of the weaknesses associated with in-world text and voice communication media, some SL participants noted that a hybrid approach where text and voice were broadcast simultaneously represented the best of both worlds. However, this also suggests that the weaknesses of text and voice accompany hybrid communication. As was noted in a previous section, three pedagogical variables were identified following a review of the SL courses included in this study: the learning variable, the teaching variable, and the communication variable (Jung, 2001). Each variable was then divided into practices that were employed during the SL sessions. Some practices were effective; some were not. The degree of effectiveness of these practices varied by instructor, by session, and by course level (Table 16). There were times when the strengths associated with a particular pedagogical practice were evident. Conversely, that same practice used with a different group of students and in a different context was less effective. In those cases, the weaknesses were more pronounced than the strengths. Table 16. Strengths and Weakness of Second Life Pedagogical Practices Pedagogical Variables Learning variable

SL Pedagogical Practices Playing the SL “game"

Strengths Creates an opportunity for hands-on experience Encourages sharing experiences with others

Weaknesses Requires individuals to complete the “assignment” Differences in skill levels equals different access

Supports the acquisition of SL skills Answering student questions

Encourages active participation

120

Enables off-topic discussions

Chapter Seven: Discussion

Teaching variable

Concepts

Addresses specific information needs

Expends class time

Translates to other virtual worlds

Ignores the how-to

Goes beyond SL skills Instructor questions

Encourages student participation

Enables off-topic discussions Expends class time

Personalized instruction

Addresses unique information needs

Excludes information needs of others

Proactive instructor response

Provides access to class material in advance

Creates a redundant learning experience

Course information planned in advance Fosters on-topic discussions

Discourages student participation Inhibits interaction

Smoother instructional delivery Reactive instructor response

Encourages student participation

Eliminates access to class material in advance Enables off-topic discussions

Rules of the SL “game”

Addresses the who, what, when, where, and why of SL Fosters the acquisition of SL skills Supports hands-on experiences

121

Applies only to SL Inhibits interaction

Chapter Seven: Discussion Communication variable

Instant messaging

Levels the communication hierarchy Minimizes disruptive in-world discussions Permits foreign language translation Provides a chat history for review Records a transcript of the discussion Supports private conversations

Text chat

Does not eliminate grammatical errors, poor spelling, or typographical errors Favors fast typists Hinders communication for non-English speakers and individuals with learning disabilities (e.g., dyslexia) Supports multiple discussions simultaneously

Requires no extra equipment

Supports off-topic backchannel conversations

Eliminates disrupting individuals in the physical world

Does not eliminate grammatical errors, poor spelling, or typographical errors

Levels the communication hierarchy Permits foreign language translation Provides a chat history for review Records a transcript of the discussion Requires no extra equipment

Favors fast typists Hinders communication for non-English speakers and individuals with learning disabilities (e.g., dyslexia) Supports multiple discussions simultaneously

Supports multiple discussions simultaneously Voice chat

Reduces communication

122

Adds technical difficulties

Chapter Seven: Discussion difficulties for individuals with learning disabilities Transmits physical world talking in the virtual world

Disturbs individuals in the physical world Lacks communication cues that support turn taking Requires additional equipment Reveals physical world characteristics of the speaker Supports one speaker at a time Transmits farther in SL than other modes of in-world communication

Hybrid communication

Provides a chat history for review

Adds technical difficulties

Records a transcript of the discussion

Creates communication rules

Reduces communication difficulties for nonnative English speakers and individuals with learning disabilities

Disturbs individuals in the physical world

Transmits physical world talking in the virtual world

123

Requires additional equipment Reveals physical world characteristics of the speaker Transmits farther in SL than other modes of in-world communication

Chapter Seven: Discussion Starting with the learning variables, one pedagogical practice used by the instructors, particularly at the beginner and intermediate levels, was playing the SL “game.” 33 Sometimes this form of playing was carried out during class time. Students in the beginner course, for example, experienced numerous wardrobe malfunctions. Because appearance was a key component of that course, the instructor assisted students as they changed their outfits, hairstyles, and skins. Rather than simply informing students how to modify their appearance, Instructor QE walked them through the process. In this way, the students were able to get hands-on experience. As a result, they were able to take an active approach to their learning, rather than passively absorbing information. There were other cases when students were given assignments to be completed before the next class. Often these assignments involved activities such as visiting a SL event, going shopping, or experiencing a play. The instructors typically asked for a report via text chat about these adventures, which gave students an opportunity to share their experiences with their classmates, including their successes and failures. Students were able to learn about new places of interest and discover ways to more effectively navigate the SL terrain. It also enabled students to identify gaps in their own knowledge. For example, some students had difficulty exploring the Macbeth sim, and several admitted that they overlooked certain parts of that space. As students who more effectively navigated the space described the objects and locales they encountered, it became evident to their classmates that there were several areas they should revisit. In general, this form of sharing created a more interactive discussion between the students and the instructors. At the same time, 33

Several scholars and residents argue that Second Life is not a game (Kelton, 2007; Livingstone & Kemp, 2006; Oishi, 2007; Steinkuehler, 2008). Individuals such as Bartle (2004) clearly state that even though virtual worlds, including MUDs, did originate from games, they are not games; rather they are places. However, the lines that differentiate worlds like SL from other virtual spaces are blurring. Residents can create games in SL, and at this time, there are small games people can play within SL (Wasik, 2006).

124

Chapter Seven: Discussion it enabled the participants to learn from each other. Instructor QE admitted that she knew nothing about avatars and gaming when she first entered SL three years ago. Even though today Instructor QE would be considered an experienced SL resident, she admitted that “there is always something new to learn” in this virtual world. Playing the SL “game” enabled residents to gain hands-on experience and interact with others. The activities and interactions helped students to acquire and fine-tune their SL skills. This made them look less like newbies and encouraged them to expand their knowledge beyond the basics. After mastering skills such as dressing an avatar and sitting down, the students in the beginner class were ready for more advanced topics such as building. Outside class time, the students located courses and video tutorials that they shared with the others in the class. This expanded the scope of the course beyond what was included in the instructor’s agenda. It also encouraged the students to recognize their interests and identify resources to fulfill those information needs. This could include asking individuals in the class, contacting outside “experts,” and locating in-world and out-of-world resources. While there were positive aspects to playing the SL “game,” this practice also had its weaknesses. First, Instructor JK noted that it was very difficult to get students who enrolled in SL continuing education courses to complete assignments before class. As was mentioned earlier, the students in these courses were career professionals, many of whom had adjusted their work schedules to fit in the course. Because their time was limited, Instructor JK said that these students believed that they would be able to pick up a particular skill or knowledge set during class time alone. Further, many students came to class with specific projects they had been asked to complete. In these cases, Instructor JK said they wanted the instructors to feed them that piece of information; in other words, these students wanted to come into SL, get their job done, and get

125

Chapter Seven: Discussion out. Instructor JK argued that SL rewards exploration and active learning. He continued by stating, “Maybe one of the warnings I should give at the beginning of the course session is that there are many frustrating things in SL, the more time you spend with the interface just exploring, the better.” Another weakness is that students came to class with different SL skill levels. While the intermediate and advanced courses had enrollment prerequisites, students came to those classes with a wide range of SL and technology-related skills. During one of the discussions in the intermediate course, the instructor posted a URL to Google Groups in the text chat space. Student GK asked what she should do with that “http thing.” In the beginner and intermediate courses, students asked via text chat what text chat was. This difference in skill levels hampered the ability of some students to fully participate in class and complete assignments. For those students who had computer skills such as locating information via the web, taking class time to address these technology-related questions was tiresome. This was perhaps most evident in the intermediate course. In that course, Student GK was the manager of a SL portal and had spent three years inworld. However, she lacked basic skills such as accessing Google Groups, using a web browser, and familiarity with communication technologies, like Skype. In session two, this student apologized for “being so stupid” and left the virtual auditorium, saying that “this [the intermediate class] is the wrong place for me.” This outburst was surprising to the instructors. Instructor JK admitted that he and Instructor IE recognized that students enrolling in the intermediate course may lack some SL skills, but they believed that these individuals would be well-versed in what seemed to be simpler technologies. He continued by providing the following explanation:

126

Chapter Seven: Discussion We naively assume that when people get as far as SL well they also know how to use a wiki or how to read a blog or how to find a website. But as we saw this time, we had someone who has managed to make their way in SL but who really doesn’t understand technology. For the most part, student questions were allowed and acknowledged at the three levels. Some students asked more questions than others, and the types of questions varied. One of the strengths of encouraging students to ask questions was that it promoted more active participation. On the negative side, it takes time for the instructor to monitor and respond to the questions. Student HN in the first session of the beginner course was very excited about SL and had a number of questions about the world. At one point during the discussion, she recognized that her questions were deviating from the instructor’s agenda and stated “I’m sorry to be so disruptive.” Some students were hesitant to ask questions during the sessions, even at the advanced level. In the final session of the advanced class, one student asked the instructor in the minutes prior to the start of class if she could ask him a question. Even though this question was unrelated to the session topic, it was of interest to many individuals in this class. Regardless, this student was concerned she was disrupting the session. The instructors recognize that it takes time to respond to questions, which is why the intermediate and advanced courses have multiple instructors. Instructor JK asserted that he would never teach one of these classes alone, not even the basic course. He said, “The best classes that we’ve had have been when we’ve also have had a TA who can answer…the questions that would take class time away from whatever the course material is that we have for that session.” Following that model, one instructor can lead the class discussion while the other instructor monitors questions and responds to them. There were more student questions in the

127

Chapter Seven: Discussion beginner course than in the intermediate and the advanced courses. In the beginner course, where the student attendance figures ranged from two to four, students asked almost 130 questions during the four sessions (Table 7). Because there was no co-instructor or course assistant, Instructor QE had to respond to the questions alone. A common theme emerged among the sessions with the greatest number of instructor questions. As was discussed in the section of Chapter Six that described the student-instructor interactions, the sessions with the lowest percentage point difference in participation at the three levels was session three for the beginner and intermediate courses and session two for the advanced course. These were also the sessions where the instructors asked the greatest number of questions. While this suggests that the instructors’ questions encourage student participation, this approach also enables the class discussion to veer off-topic. This may be unintentional and the result of misunderstandings. For instance, Instructor JK asked students in the advanced course whether the Macbeth sim was a substitute for the play. One student responded to the question by posting a non sequitur but later noted that she had misspoken. She said, “Oh wait, I misunderstood. lol.” This discussion also prompted students to ask whether a tour would be given in class. Rather than continuing on with the topic of immersive learning environments, the discussion drifted to debating the merits of taking class time to tour a sim that was part of the assignment for the week. In addition, there were times when the instructor was unclear about the meaning of the students’ responses, which required follow-up questions. Encouraging students to clarify their points and elaborate on their responses took time. On occasion, the instruction became focused on the questions and concerns of one student. This personalized approach addresses the information needs of that particular individual,

128

Chapter Seven: Discussion but at the same time, it can exclude the information needs of the other students. In the beginner course, one student was concerned about her appearance. She claimed that her avatar needed a “complete overhaul.” Later, that student was bemoaning the fact that her avatar was wearing half a skirt and no hair. The instructor noted that the avatar was actually wearing two skirts from two different outfits. For the next 40 minutes of class, the instructor deviated from the agenda to redress the student’s avatar while the other students waited. This was helpful in that the students learned the difference between wearing an outfit and attaching an outfit. Nonetheless, the main benefits were to the student with the wardrobe malfunction issue. Because documents and resources are not easily shared in SL, the instructors in the intermediate and advanced courses used an information repository such as a Moodle or Google Groups. The intermediate instructors used Google Groups, for example, as a place to post class notes, session transcripts, and information related to class assignments. They also posted their lecture scripts in advance. This advanced preparation enabled them to keep discussions on-topic, which allowed them to share large amounts of information with students. Further, these prewritten lectures made it possible for instructors to use a HUD to conduct their sessions in voice and text chat simultaneously. While this fostered the smooth delivery of the lecture material, it also was redundant for those who read the material prior to class. Also, these lectures were rather one-sided – the focus was on the instructor’s materials. Because the instructors were sometimes cutting-and-pasting their messages from prewritten documents, no typing was involved. This allowed these instructors to share a large number of messages with the class participants. There were also times when the posts were rather long. Large amounts of information to read and digest quickly may have discouraged student participation and inhibited interaction among the participants. Moreover, there were times when

129

Chapter Seven: Discussion the instructors appeared to notice that they were the only ones contributing to the discussion. Following the prewritten lecture Instructor NS presented to the advanced course students, he asked the students if they had any questions. Without waiting for a response from them, he apologized by saying “Sorry to be so wordy. But I find it to be a fascinating, vital topic.” With the proactive instructor response mode (Table 16), the lecture material may be offtopic, often because the instructor has failed to tailor the information to match the needs of the students. For example, only two of the 10 students in the advanced course were librarians. The other eight students were faculty members, information architects, human-computer interaction specialists, and curriculum coordinators for public school systems. Even though the occupational interests of the students were clearly stated, Instructor NS used a prewritten lecture in the final session that was focused solely on libraries. The topic of that session was assessment, which a guest speaker touched upon in the previous week. In the earlier session, Guest Speaker BF was talking about course assessment. Because Instructor NS indicated that the fourth session would cover assessment, the implication was that the group would continue the discussion started by the guest speaker. That was not the case. Instead, the focus was on libraries, reference services, and other library activities. When a student asked Instructor NS about course assessment in SL, Instructor NS stated that his experience was with “regions, programs, and grant-funded initiatives, not courses per se.” Another student wanted to see some assessment tools. Instructor NS told her that the tools would be covered in a later part of class, but they were not displayed in the session. In contrast to the proactive instructor response, some instructors took a more spontaneous approach. This could be seen at different points during the class sessions. The instructors often began the sessions by asking about the students’ assignments for the week. They would respond

130

Chapter Seven: Discussion to the students’ account of their experiences by offering advice or suggesting additional resources. It was not uncommon for students to go on field trips or for guest speakers to talk to the group. In these cases, the instructor had to react to points made during the discussion rather than rely on prewritten material. As was noted earlier, sessions where the instructors asked a large number of questions or the group went on field trips were often ones where the students had higher participation levels. While the students were not privy to the content of the session when instructors adopted more reactive techniques, the data suggest that they were more likely to participate in class than when a less proactive response was taken by the instructors. By being more reactive instead of proactive, however, the instructors gave up some control over the sessions. There were times when this led to some unexpected events. The fourth intermediate course session was designed to be a playshop where students could get hands-on experience with scripting. While waiting for students to arrive, the instructor began by asking students to find the kiosk that was located in their inventory. It quickly became evident that students did not have the correct version of the kiosk. Instead of having the teaching version of the kiosk, the students had a version that would not allow them to manipulate the scripts. The instructor told the students to throw away the incorrect version, so she could give them the teaching one. This created some confusion among the students. Added to the chaos were the students who arrived to class late who had to catch up to the group. Some students became more interested in waiting for their kiosk to load (i.e., rez) and crowding other students than in altering the scripts. While students acquired hands-on experience with scripting in SL, more effort was required by the instructors to keep students on-task. Communication was another pedagogical variable found in SL (Table 16). In the courses included in this study, the participants most commonly used IM and text chat. Text-based

131

Chapter Seven: Discussion communication tools were advantageous for a number of reasons. As has been noted repeatedly in the literature, text-based chat can level the communication hierarchy; students can participate in the discussion at any time (e.g., Jenkins, 2004). This also supports multiple discussions that occur simultaneously. Typing is a somewhat quiet activity; thus, this form of communication is less likely to disturb individuals in the physical world who may be located near the SL participant. Also, the courses observed here were conducted in English; however, devices are available in-world to translate foreign languages. For individuals who missed part of the discussion, a chat history and transcript are available for review. Further, text-based communication tools require no additional equipment – individuals who are able to log into SL have met the requirements for IM and text chat. One advantage that IM has over text chat is that IM can minimize the occurrence of disruptive in-world discussions. Students who got lost, for example, were able to IM the instructor to get a teleport to class without broadcasting that information to the entire group. Another common use for IM was to assist students who are having technical difficulties. In the intermediate course, IM was used to help a student who was having problems accessing Google Groups. Rather than take time away from the class discussion, Instructor TB worked with a student in that course who was having difficulty rezzing an object. Because IM is more private, however, it also encourages off-topic backchannel conversations. This is true for students and the instructors. During the second session of the intermediate course, Instructor JK was engaged in a conversation with individuals outside class about a talk on “lovely tales of magic” at one of the SL libraries. This conversation was not visible during the session, yet appeared as part of the transcript that this instructor later distributed to the students.

132

Chapter Seven: Discussion The backchannel conversations are not the only weaknesses associated with text-based communication tools. In SL, there is no check for grammar, poor spelling, or typographical errors. A student in the intermediate course asked his peers whether they correct their typing mistakes before submitting their post to SL. Three students quickly responded that they did correct their mistakes. One student added that she no longer feels the need to capitalize words. Instructor IE felt very strongly about the importance of capitalization and proper punctuation. This instructor also disliked excessive use of caps lock. Many of these errors occurred because individuals were trying to post messages quickly. Due to the fact that text chat was the primary communication tool used in these SL courses, fast typists were privileged. Everyone in this study’s SL courses spoke English. In this case, nonEnglish speakers would have been at a disadvantage. Individuals with learning disabilities such as dyslexia would have encountered problems communicating with the group via text chat and IM, as well. Not only would they have had problems typing in the chat space, but they would have also experienced difficulties reading the messages posted by others. Further, chat supports multiple discussions simultaneously, which can make these braided conversations difficult to decipher. While there were misunderstandings during these sessions, the students appeared to have little difficulty following the conversations. Voice communication is relatively new to SL. Unlike virtual worlds in which this communication mode was part of the initial design, such as There.com, voice was not part of SL from the beginning. Rather, it was added to SL in the summer of 2007, approximately four years after the public release of the virtual world. To many, speech is a more natural form of communication than typing. As Instructor IE observed, voice can be a “marvelous enhancer” when the rules of communication for the group are established in advance. In these sessions, no

133

Chapter Seven: Discussion individuals were identified as having a learning disability. However, Student GS shared her experience participating in group meetings outside class time with individuals who had dyslexia. She noted that the dyslexic individuals had difficulties reading and writing in text chat; it was much easier for them to participate via voice. In addition, Instructor QE indicated that it was easier to discuss complex topics in voice, which supports the findings of scholars such as Teng and Tavernas (2004-2005). However, as Instructor JK observed, voice in SL was not mature or stable at the time of this study. As was seen in the beginner, intermediate, and advanced courses, voice added technical difficulties to the SL experience. First, voice users needed to have equipment such as a microphone and headphones or speakers. Student NW noted that she found it helpful to have a headset when using voice in SL. Yet even with these devices, voice in SL could be problematic. In these three courses, the instructors attempted to use voice to communicate with the students. There was only one instance when students used voice, and that was done as an experiment during the second session of the intermediate course. Instructor QE started each session in voice, only to revert back to text due to sound problems. Instructor JK also tried to use voice to introduce himself to the students in the intermediate course. Because the only noise being transmitted was static, however, this instructor also switched to text. One of the guest speakers in the advanced course used voice, as well, yet during his time with the class, several students could not hear any sound. For those who could hear, the audio would occasionally stop. Several students made the comment that they were missing a lot and would have to revisit that location at a later time. In addition to having the proper equipment, there are other concerns associated with voice chat. For one, voice users must find a location where their SL conversation will not disturb

134

Chapter Seven: Discussion individuals in the physical world. Even in SL, voice carries farther than other in-world communication modes. Thus, a voice conversation may disrupt other residents. Instructor JK mentioned that he uses a private island or a very high place for voice meetings, which may be difficult for non-land owning residents to access. Voice in SL lacks communication turn-taking cues, and it only supports one speaker at a time. This prevents residents from talking over one another, yet it does not stop them from monopolizing the conversation. In the experience of Instructor IE and Guest Speaker RI, many voice discussions tended to be dominated by two to three of the loudest male voices. As this suggests, the gender of the speaker is more obvious in voice. Other physical world characteristics may be revealed through voice, as well. Instructor IE claimed that age, nationality, and socio-economic status could be revealed when using voice, which was problematic for some SL residents. She argued that “being outed by voice may be uncomfortable, unpleasant, and even a source of psychological distress.” Another mode of communication used in these SL courses was a hybrid approach. Instead of using voice or text alone, the instructors used both. Instructor IE used a HUD that enabled her to post the text of the lecture and read it simultaneously. With the hybrid approach, students had access to the chat history, as well as the transcript that was recorded by the system. Moreover, reading the discussion in real time was not required. This approach was found only in the intermediate course. The instructors for the beginner and the advanced courses used voice more sparingly and primarily when discussing concepts that were difficult to explain via text. While there are noted strengths associated with the hybrid approach, weaknesses are compounded by the fact that it shares the weaknesses of text and voice. One additional factor instructors may consider when selecting communication media is establishing communication rules, a point that Instructor IE stressed in several sessions. Who

135

Chapter Seven: Discussion will use voice? Who will use text chat? Will the instructors be the only participants allowed to use voice? Will the students be instructed to ask questions and contribute comments through text chat only? Instructor IE advised that the forms of communication should be established at the beginning of an event. At the beginning of the first session, for example, Instructor IE informed the class that she and her assistant would only answer questions posted in text. While many instructors believe that this approach helps them reduce the chaos and manage the riskier aspects of these SL sessions (see also Selfe & Selfe, 1994), it also reestablished the classroom hierarchy that the literature claims is dismantled when using text chat alone. Unlike the intermediate course, the rules of communication were not delineated at the start of the beginner and advanced class sessions.

Research Question 3 In what ways do the pedagogical practices change at the different course levels? The SL instructors at the three different course levels utilized different pedagogical practices during the sessions. At the beginner and intermediate levels, several of these practices were designed to help students learn how to be in SL. Beginner students, for instance, received personalized advice regarding SL basics such as finding and changing their outfit. In addition to gaining hands-on experience with scripting language, students in the intermediate sessions were introduced to broad concepts that would transfer to environments outside SL. Students in the advanced class were engaged in activities that focused on a more vicarious approach. In the advanced course, students attended lectures or participated in field trips to sites where guest speakers would share their experiences setting up an educational presence. Hands-on experience was not part of this curriculum.

136

Chapter Seven: Discussion For the most part, the beginner and advanced instructors relied primarily on text chat to interact with students. The intermediate instructors experimented more with the communication media in SL by using a hybrid approach in the first two sessions. By session three, these instructors reverted back to using text alone to communicate with students. The overall intention of this research question was to determine differences at the beginner, intermediate, and advanced levels. However, the data revealed that course level may be merely one factor influencing the differences noted in this section. It is possible that the instructors’ teaching styles and personal preferences influenced the differences, as well. Instructor IE reflected on the changes in her approach when instructing students at different course levels and made the following observation: “My teaching methods remain the same, I simply change delivery speed and complexity.” In general, the these instructors taught the same SL offered by this library group. Given the opportunity to teach a different type of course at a different level, however, some of the SL instructors stated that they would alter their pedagogical approach. Instructor JK describes his ideal teaching approach in the following manner: My dream class for teaching sort of theory of community libraries would be more of a playshop. Not even a workshop but a playshop approach to have progressively more complicated activities each time let a group process evolve from learning together. And this isn’t two hours once a week for six weeks this is a semester. Table 17 outlines the specific pedagogical practices that were identified at each level. With regard to the learning variable, the instructor for all three courses emphasized the importance of engaging actively with the virtual world as a way to learn how to play the SL “game.” At the beginner and intermediate levels, for instance, students were given an

137

Chapter Seven: Discussion opportunity to gain hands-on experience in class changing their appearance, building objects, and modifying scripts. Students in the courses at both levels were given homework assignments to complete outside class, as well. Homework examples include shopping and exploring a virtual play. Students in the advanced course were not given the opportunity to gain hands on experience setting up an educational presence, nor were they assigned homework. While questions were commonly asked by the SL instructors and students, the way questions were used differed. The beginner instructor typically asked and answered questions related to students learning how to play the SL “game.” In the intermediate course, the instructors posed questions that would facilitate discussion. Questions were less common in the advanced session, and the instructors for this course used this technique in a more reserved manner. And when those instructors did ask students questions, there were several instances when little or no time was given for a response.

138

Chapter Seven: Discussion Table 17. Pedagogical Practices at the Beginner, Intermediate, and Advanced Levels Pedagogical Variables

Beginner Level Practices

Learning variable

Playing the SL “game” Playing the SL “game” Questions (in class, outside (in class, outside class) class)

Teaching variable

Questions

Questions

Personalized instruction

Concepts

Questions Reactive instructor response Rules of the SL “game” Communication variable

Intermediate Level Practices

Text chat

Proactive instructor response Questions

Advanced Level Practices

Proactive instructor response Reactive instructor response

Reactive instructor response Instant messaging

Text chat

Hybrid communication Text chat Voice chat

At the beginner level, Instructor QE took a less structured, more reactive pedagogical approach. This course was small, which enabled her to address the specific information needs of individual students. For example, Student CH wanted a Mohawk hairstyle but could not locate one in the stores he visited before class. Instructor QE took him to the SL store, Free Dove, but that style was not there. The instructor went through her inventory to find landmarks for places with free hair. After locating two sites that she was certain had Mohawks in stock, Instructor QE distributed the landmarks to everyone in the class. Student CH was able to find his Mohawk, and the other students had two new places to search for different hairstyles. In another session,

139

Chapter Seven: Discussion Instructor QE gave Student HN’s avatar a complete makeover while the class watched the transformation from frumpy to “glammed up.” In contrast, Instructor IE and Instructor JK in the intermediate course adopted a more structured pedagogical approach. The first half of their sessions were scripted in advanced and posted to Google Groups for students to review. Even though the script was available prior to class, the instructors recycled that material for the lecture by using the HUD or by cutting and pasting it into the chat box. Following the lecture, however, the instructors switched to a more reactive approach, which was less scripted and involved more questions. In addition, the discussions were rooted in broad concepts that could be applicable to virtual worlds beyond SL such as immersive learning. Fewer pedagogical practices were used in the advanced course. As Instructor MK noted, conversation was the primary technique used in the course. She asserted that the more tools an instructor adds to the class, the more complex it becomes, which opens up the possibility for technological problems. Hence, the advanced instructors opted for a simpler model. The first and fourth sessions of the advanced course, for example, relied primarily on a lecture approach. In those sessions, the instructors cut-and-pasted material into the chat box from a prewritten script. While the delivery of the lecture was smooth, it fostered the transmittal of information rather than interaction between the instructors and the students. Another practice the advanced course instructors employed involved field trips. The sessions that moved away from teacher-centered methods were chaotic, yet the students more actively contributed to the conversation and posted high frequency of cognitive messages. The advanced course instructors also relied upon simple modes of communication. Text chat was the communication tool of choice in that course. There was one instance when a guest

140

Chapter Seven: Discussion speaker used voice, but it was fraught with problems – some students could not hear the discussion, and there were times when the audio stopped for everyone. Problems with voice were also prevalent in the beginner session, so the instructor had to use text chat to communicate with students. Instructor QE told the students in the beginner course that she would switch from text chat to voice to explain the more complex topics. However, she had problems with voice during every session, which forced her to quickly abandon voice. Among the three levels, the intermediate instructors’ approach to communicating with students was more complex. For the most part, Instructor IE and Instructor JK used text chat and IM to communicate with students. These instructors were convinced that the benefits associated with text outweighed any of the negatives associated with this form of communication. As Instructor IE argued, “The low requirements, simple use, and ease of making a record are features which I believe will assure text chat its place as the dominant educational communication method for the foreseeable future.” However, in comparison to the beginner and the advanced courses, voice was used more often and more effectively in the intermediate course. The practices outlined in Table 17 indicate that the instructors utilized a variety of pedagogical practices while teaching their courses. While each instructor employed different techniques during the sessions, their use of functional moves followed similar trajectories (see Figures 17-20). This suggests that the teaching style of these instructors did not deviate substantially as the course level increased. Also, their functional move styles were similar even when the pedagogical practices were not. In session two, for example, the beginner instructor walked students through the SL menu items, the intermediate instructors lectured, and the advanced instructors led students on a field trip. Nonetheless, the frequency of instructor

141

Chapter Seven: Discussion cognitive messages was high at the three levels; the frequency of logistical, social, and technical messages followed a downward path for these instructors.

Research Question 4 In what ways do the pedagogical practices affect the student-instructor interactions that take place in Second Life? Many SL instructors claim that the best way to learn how to be in this virtual world is to connect with others, create content, and consider the possibilities. In cases where more active learning practices were integrated into the session, the students’ participation levels increased. Perhaps more importantly, the proportion of cognitive messages that students contributed to the discussion increased. Also, when the instructors asked and encouraged questions, the data suggest that the students became more involved in the discussions. When the instructors spent a substantial amount of class time lecturing, the participation levels of the students suggested that they assumed a more passive role in the class; they posted fewer messages. The level of cognitive messages contributed by the students dropped, as well. Some of the courses investigated for this study provided students with opportunities to play the SL “game” as a learning technique during class time (Table 18). While this was not a for-credit course series, the beginner and intermediate instructors also assigned homework to the students. They also encouraged students to share their experiences with the group. Instructor QE, for example, used these student “reports” as a teachable moment, which gave her the opportunity to customize the instruction by making suggestions and offering advice to each student. At the same time, other students were able to learn from the successes and failures of their peers. Sharing with the group and gaining hands-on experience enabled the students to interact with the

142

Chapter Seven: Discussion instructors and their classmates. As student DN recognized, “students need to be collaborative and creative from the beginning of a class throughout the course, doing, using, making, producing, building, modifying, etc.” Unlike the beginner and intermediate course, playing the SL “game” for students in the advanced course occurred through field trips. Table 18. Second Life Pedagogical Practices and Student-Instructor Interactions Pedagogical Variables

SL Pedagogical Practices

SL Student-Instructor Interactions

Learning variable

Playing the SL “game”

Fostered the sharing of experiences Promoted hands-on experience

Questions

Clarified unclear impressions Directed conversation in certain directions

Teaching variable

Concepts

Encouraged more abstract thought Expanded the discussion beyond the confines of SL

Personalized instruction

Addressed the specific information needs of one student Monopolized class time

Proactive instructor response

Conveyed large amounts of information Decreased the level of spontaneity Discouraged interaction

Questions

Directed the conversation in unexpected areas Encouraged participation

Reactive instructor response

143

Increased level of

Chapter Seven: Discussion spontaneity Supported less structured discussions Rules of the SL “game”

Minimized the need for exploration Transmitted information applicable to SL

Communication variable

Instant messaging

Enabled private conversations

Hybrid communication

Expanded communication options to include text and voice Included the strengths and weaknesses of text and voice

Text chat

Discouraged the participation of some residents (e.g., non-native English speakers, individuals with learning disabilities) Provided a simple, low-tech mode of communication

Voice chat

Presented a faster and more natural form of communication Introduced additional technical difficulties

Some SL instructors incorporated broad concepts rather than specific SL skills into their discussions. This type of discussion was most readily seen in the intermediate course. These concepts were applicable to other virtual worlds, as well as the physical classroom. However, students did not always view this as a benefit; instead, they considered these discussions to be irrelevant and confusing. Student GK, for one, claimed that she was unfamiliar some of the 144

Chapter Seven: Discussion computer-related concepts. This made her feel like she was “trying to function in a foreign language when there aren't enough words I know the meanings of to understand what someone is saying or asking to have done.” Instead of using class time for discussing concepts with the instructors, Student GK would have preferred a more hands-on learning experience. Other students in this class also commented that the instructors should have focused less on the concepts and more time on SL projects. The scripting playshop is another example of instructors telling students how to do a particular task in SL. In these cases, students are not required to try a particular task and fail at it. Rather, they are given precise instructions that minimize the need for exploration. In his experience, Instructor JK stated that when his students come into SL with a specific task, they take a “drive-by” attitude toward the world and want to be given the rules of the game. He also made the following observation: Academics and librarians are all very, very busy, and they’re not in SL for fun, or they think they’re not in Second Life for fun. And they don’t want to play. They want to do their task, which I think holds us back. But generally students when they’re in a class they want to sit down, they don’t feel like they have time to explore the menu options at the top of the screen, they want to know, right click, choose sit from the pie menu or uh, control-alt-p or whatever. Instructor JK continued by stressing that SL rewards the active learner, the individual who is willing to “poke at the interface and learn to build and learn to do all sorts of things.” While the steep learning curve encourages the dissemination of the rules, it may, according to Instructor JK, discourage students from learning SL at a deeper level.

145

Chapter Seven: Discussion In SL, student-instructor interactions are supported by communication media – text chat, IM, and voice. Like IM, text chat was a simple, low-tech way for students and instructors to communicate. The text-based options were typically the communication method of course for the SL at the beginner, intermediate, and advanced levels. Attempts were made in all the SL courses to use voice chat, and much class time was spent by the instructors to get it to work. In general, hybrid communication was viewed as valuable communication style by individuals such as Instructor IE and Student BM, for example. However, the data suggest that it discouraged interactions between and among students and instructors. In session two of the intermediate course, the instructors used a hybrid approach to disseminate the lecture material to the students. During that portion of the session, the instructors posted 75% of the messages, whereas students contributed 25% of the postings. In other intermediate sessions when the hybrid approach was not undertaken, the student and instructor participation levels were more aligned and almost equal. Also, a recent study by Ophir, Nass, and Wagner (2009) suggests that individuals who engage in multitasking are not very good at it and are distracted by the multiple media streams. Thus, the students in the intermediate course may have found it easier to pay attention to transmittals from a single communication tool rather than from a hybrid model. The students’ participation levels were not consistently high across all sessions at the three levels (Figures 1-2). Thus, the session where students more actively participated were scrutinized in greater detail. Students in the beginner class were given homework each week. Assignments included visiting three in-world spaces using the SL search function to identify those locations, participating in a SL hunt, completing the Virtual Ability activities, and shopping for new clothes. At the beginning of the third beginner course session, the instructor asked the students to share their experiences while they completed the assignment for the week.

146

Chapter Seven: Discussion Students described the concerts and talks they attended, modeled the free clothing they found, and complained about the technical difficulties encountered along the way. One beginner student who attended an in-world talk on educational technology mentioned that he was embarrassed when his avatar crashed in the middle of that discussion. The instructor assured him that crashing happened to everyone, even more experienced SL residents. Another student wore the new clothes he bought at a store in SL and sought guidance on removing a scarf. It was also during this session that a student and the instructor engaged in a discussion about the use of HUDs. The student had purchased a HUD in one of the SL stores but was unclear about its purpose. At that point, the discussion became a personalized learning experience in that the other students in the course did not have a HUD. While this session of the beginner course did have a lecture component, particularly when the students began to create a poster, the pedagogy was more focused on students sharing their experiences than on the instructor conveying SL facts to them. In the class time when students more actively participated in the intermediate course, the topic of discussion for the week was immersion. The first part of this session was conducted in Shakespeare’s Global Theater, and one of the instructors dressed as a Highland Warrior. Like the beginner course, the students in the intermediate course had been given an assignment; they were to read the lecture notes and explore the Macbeth sim. The instructor leading the discussion began by asking students about their experiences with the sim. This quickly evolved into a conversation about the differences between experiencing a play versus reading a play. After the break, the session resumed in a reading garden where the students and instructors danced while continuing with the topic of immersion. Throughout the session, the lead instructor posted open-

147

Chapter Seven: Discussion ended questions to the students, as well as prompting statements. As students discussed their experiences, they shared their ideas for using SL with their physical world students. As was noted earlier, students in the second session of the advanced course exceeded the participation levels of the instructors. During this session, the students participated in field trips, and there were two guest speakers. The instructor began by asking the students if there were any questions from the previous week. Many of the students wanted to know more about buying land in SL – location, pricing, options, etc. Following that brief discussion, the students were teleported to the first field trip location. This site was selected to show students what was possible with smaller parcels of land. In addition to showing the students around this space, the guest speaker shared tips for building objects. This included the use of sandboxes for building purposes and prim conservation. 34 Because students were interested in learning more about acquiring land and building on it, the number of questions they had for the next guest speaker was higher. That speaker was sharing her experiences setting up a SL presence for multiple campuses of an academic institution. The points she made were related to planning, funding, conducting classes, and engaging students through meaningful projects. Guest Speaker EV also mentioned that they required students to complete an avatar boot camp within the first week of class. This camp was designed to teach students the basics skills needed for SL. There were so many questions presented by the student attending this session that the guest speaker invited them to contact her via email or telephone after class. Many of these students were involved in similar activities at their institutions; therefore, they wanted to gain as much insight from individuals who had already gone through the experience. 34

Prims, or primitives, are the building blocks in SL – boxes, cylinders, prisms, spheres. Two or more of these three-dimensional polygonal shapes can be combined to create objects that consist of many prims. Prim conservation refers to building an object using no more prims than necessary.

148

Chapter Seven: Discussion Finally, the advanced course had three instructors: Instructor MK, Instructor BA, and Instructor NS. Interestingly, it was in the advanced course, which had the greatest number of instructors present, that the students most actively participated in the discussions. This suggests that a higher number of instructors present during a SL session may increase the level of participation among students. Also, conducting class outside the regular meeting space had a positive effect on the participation levels of the students. Students’ participation levels increased when the instructors moved away from teacher-centered instructional techniques such as lecturing. At the same time, the participation levels of the instructors decreased during these sessions.

Research Question 5 In what ways do the technological affordances affect the student-instructor interactions that take place in Second Life? The affordances available to students and instructors in the SL space can be classified into the following categories: experiential tools, point-of-view, presence, and social interaction (Table 19). The affordances that were frequently used by instructors participating in this study included presence, social interaction, and experiential tools. Throughout the sessions, the avatars, ID tags, and gathering in the shared space of the virtual world enabled class participants to express presence. Much of what occurs during these SL courses involves social interaction. The students and instructors were able to interact with each other through friending, checking profiles, and through the communication media. Another affordance category that was commonly used involved experiential tools. These features enabled the SL participants to

149

Chapter Seven: Discussion navigate the virtual world space, collect and access inventory items, and utilize the SL menu options. While affordances enable SL residents to connect with others in a visually rich shared space, technological difficulties can turn this potentially powerful experience into a deficient one. At the three course levels, the students and the instructors experienced a plethora of technical problems, such as crashing and lag. Some SL participants encountered complications using the communication media. Technical issues including dropped audio and static limited the usability of voice. Thus, text-based media were found to be more reliable, particularly text chat. However, IM – a medium used for more private conversations – was a text option that remained concealed to some students such as those who were unfamiliar with this form of real time direct communication. These individuals often failed to recognize when instructors were attempting to interact with them through this medium. In these cases, the affordance was unrecognizable and as a result, had little value for these users. Much time was spent in the beginner course making experiential tools such as movements, inventory items, and menu options more recognizable to the students. The beginner course also spent time discussing point-of-view as a way to make shopping easier: rather than move the avatar through the virtual store, the resident could simply use the camera and mouselook options to view the items on display. In general, the assumption made by the intermediate and advanced instructors was that students were familiar with the experiential and point-of-view tools. Affordances related to creating a sense of presence were popular topics in the beginner and intermediate courses. Because the focus of the beginner course was on the basics, class time focused on tweaking the appearance of avatars. Students also learned how to alter their ID tags

150

Chapter Seven: Discussion and discovered how to obtain multiple avatars. The instructors in the beginner and the intermediate courses even introduced their alts to the students. In the intermediate course, Instructor IE conducted the second half of the first session as her alt. Instructor IE, as well as Instructor JK, also altered their appearance before and during class. At the start of session three, Instructor JK was dressed in a Scottish kilt to discuss Macbeth. In the previous session, Instructor JK transformed his avatar into a ferret. The purpose of these transformations was to illustrate the use of avatar appearance as an instructional tool. These affordances, as well as their constraints, can impact the teaching and learning that takes place in this environment. Basic movements such as walking and sitting were evident at all three course levels. While not automatically implemented in SL, gestures also contribute to the interactions that take place in-world. During the third intermediate session on immersive instructional tools, the course instructors teleported the students to a garden. There they conducted the class discussion while everyone danced to the music that was streamed into the sim. When students arrived to the garden, the environmental setting during the session appeared to be midday; however, each participant had the ability to change that level of lighting through the SL menu function. A landmark was placed in the students’ inventory so they could return to the garden after class.

151

Chapter Seven: Discussion Table 19. Second Life Affordances Affordances

SL Examples

Experiential tools

Animations/gestures/movement (dancing, flying, sitting, walking, yawning, etc.), building, environmental settings, heads up display (HUD), images, inventory, menu, scripting, sound

Point-of-view

Camera options, mouselook options

Presence

Avatars, avatar name, away from keyboard (AFK), ID tags, multiple avatars, shared access to public spaces, shared experience

Social interaction

Friending, instant messaging, profiles, shouting, text chat, translators, voice chat, whispering

A HUD was not commonly used by most of the instructors, but participants in the beginner and intermediate courses learned more about this tool. In the beginner course, for example, Student EB purchased a HUD and asked the instructor how it worked. With the HUD off, the student moved like a newbie; with the HUD on, he exhibited the movements of an experienced resident. In another case that occurred during that class, the HUD was employed to stop an animation. Instructor QE teleported the students to the field trip site without first asking the students to stand up, which would stop the sitting animation. Upon landing, the students could not stand – they remained in a seated position. The instructor tried giving the students a HUD to stop the sitting animation. This trick was successful and the field trip was able to continue. One way SL residents create a sense of presence in-world is through their avatars. When individuals create a SL account, they select an avatar name and modify their avatar. In the early days of SL, residents could select their own first and last name. More recently, however, 152

Chapter Seven: Discussion residents are asked to select a last name from a predetermined list. Once the avatar name has been selected it cannot be changed. The default SL setting displays the avatar’s name and in many cases group affiliation over the avatar’s head. A student in the beginner class did not like his name and asked Instructor QE if there was a way to change it. The instructor suggested that he just create a new avatar and select another name. It is not uncommon for residents to have multiple avatars. For example, in the intermediate course, Instructor IE switched to her alt (i.e., alternative avatar) for a panel discussion on Steampunk. She noted that initially this alt was male. When asked about non-human avatars, Instructor IE mentioned that she only had one, because they made her feel uncomfortable. Instructor JK chimed in by claiming that he had approximately 20 different avatars but really only used 10 of those. There are different reasons SL residents create alts. Instructor QE, for one, stated that she had an alt that was designed for non-business purposes. She believed that in order to explain what was available in SL and describe the possible “dangers,” she had to explore areas with gambling, sex, and alternative cultures such as Gor, 35 fairies, and vampires. For these explorations, Instructor QE used her alt. This instructor also had two other alts – one male and one female – that she used for shopping experiments. She wanted to see what type of avatar creation was possible without spending any Linden Dollars. 36 The presence of the avatars contributes to the social situation that occurs in the shared space, even when the individual behind the avatar is away from the computer (AFK). When an individual leaves the computer without logging out of SL, the avatar remains, which is very different from an individual walking out of the room; the individual is physically absent but virtually present. There are times, however, when AFK does not mean away from keyboard. 35

Gor is a fictional counter-earth setting described in John Norman’s science fiction novels. Members of the Gor culture promote sexual master/slave relationships, although slavery is not required. 36 The Linden Dollar (L$) is the virtual micro-currency used in SL. It can be exchanged for U.S. dollars.

153

Chapter Seven: Discussion Instead, Boellstorff (2008) argues that AFK means “away from virtual sociality” (p. 108). He suggests that there are degrees to AFK – some individuals may be physically away from the computer, whereas others may be watching the text chat conversation without responding. In general, it can be difficult for instructors to know when students are physically and virtually present and when they are simply virtually present. Instructor JK mentioned the AFK concept with regard to the intermediate SL courses. He asserted that many students try to multitask during class for domestic and/or work-related reasons. The student may be letting a dog outside, making dinner, doing laundry, or responding to a work colleague’s question. The instructor has no idea what the student is doing in the physical world during class time. Because the text chat appears in the communication history window, it is possible for students to catch up on the missed portions of the conversation easily. There are also times when an individual may be at the keyboard, but the avatar is not present inworld. This form of AFK may occur when the SL system freezes or the avatar crashes. Technical difficulties were common during the SL sessions. Students, instructors, and guest speakers crashed numerous times during class time. On occasion, some participants were unable to rejoin their SL classmates. Crashing was not the only SL system difficulty encountered during these courses. While much of the session time did not involve moving around the SL space, lag was evident when the group attempted to do activities beyond sitting and listening to a lecture. It was not uncommon for several minutes to pass before the images completely rezzed on the screen, as well. This resulted in avatars that appeared to be naked and mere outlines of buildings to be visible, for example. Another affordance that contributes to the sense of a shared experience is the social interactions that take place in world. These interactions between and among avatars occur

154

Chapter Seven: Discussion through the communication tools available in SL. In the three SL courses described in this study, text chat was the most frequently used communication mode. Because IM is for private conversations, it was also employed when students had technical questions unrelated to the session topic. There were times when IM was used to help late students catch up with the group, as well. This occurred in the final session of the intermediate course when a student arrived for the second half of a hands-on scripting session. While one instructor continued on with the lesson, the other used IM to help the late arrival rez the scripting kiosk materials. Voice is a more natural form of communication, but in SL, there are additional requirements to take into consideration with voice. Residents wishing to use voice must have a microphone, speakers or headset, and a place to access SL that will not disturb those in the physical world. 37 Microphones that are left on or that are set up improperly can impede communication, as well. Situations with multiple speakers may find voice chaotic; turn taking is difficult due to the lack of cues, and individuals are able to speak over one another. In contrast to text, residents using voice are more identifiable, which can be concerning to some residents. Instructors at the different course levels tried to use voice chat, at least to some extent. In the majority of these cases, voice was problematic and failed to work properly even after multiple attempts. One student in the intermediate course stated that in her experience, “voice is the spawn of evil.” A hybrid communication approach, which was employed during the intermediate sessions, is not unique to the SL courses under investigation. The Graduate School of Library and Information Science’s LEEP program at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

37

The standard range of voice chat is 18 feet (60 meters), yet Instructor IE noted that experience suggests that voice is transmitted much farther. Individuals who have “Hear Voice Chat from Camera Position” selected may be able to hear voice chat from up to 34 feet (110 meters) away. Therefore, conversations conducted in voice chat may disturb residents in nearby SL areas.

155

Chapter Seven: Discussion employs a similar model. LEEP class sessions include synchronous and asynchronous communication characteristics: synchronous text chat rooms and real-time audio broadcasts (Jenkins, 2004). The success of the LEEP program may have influenced the instructors’ hybrid communication mode selection. Like the SL courses described in this dissertation, the LEEP participants meet on a regular basis in a real-time virtual classroom for two hours each session. One benefit that is often touted of communication in virtual worlds is that the lines of communication are open to everyone at anytime. The assumption is that no one “voice” can dominate the discussion. Yet, the SL courses that did employ voice, at least to some extent, restricted the students’ communication options to one mode (i.e., text), whereas the instructors had the opportunity to use two (i.e., text and voice). The SL instructors noted that this arrangement made the sessions less chaotic and easier to manage. Together the affordances outlined here have an impact on the student-instructor interactions that take place in SL. While the immediacy associated with the both the students and instructors connecting simultaneously has the potential to be powerful, many of these affordances are not automatic and require thought on the part of the user. To scholars such as Jenkins (2009), the current version of SL feels impoverished. For example, Jenkins highlights the fact that individuals have to consciously think about the gestures they make in SL; in contrast, gestures made when communicating in the physical world are more spontaneous and less calculated. Thus, Jenkins believes that this restricts him when teaching in SL. Similar comments were made by the SL students, as well. Student EB, for example, noted that non-verbal forms of communication such as gestures enhance student-instructor interactions. Without gestures, this student remarked that in SL, “there is no way for the teacher to “feel” how students are responding or how well the content is being learned.” Further, in discussing the deficiencies of

156

Chapter Seven: Discussion the SL hardware, Instructor JK asserted the following: “Inexpressiveness of avatars is a big frustration to me because we are essentially puppeteers and we are communicating through our puppets and our puppets should be more expressive tools.”

157

Chapter Eight: Conclusion CHAPTER EIGHT: CONCLUSION The rhetoric surrounding educational uses of virtual worlds argues that these digital environments have the potential to alter the teacher-centered structure found in many schools today. In SL, individuals come together in a shared space and engage in shared practices. The virtual world experiences also extend the boundaries of the traditional classroom where collective intelligence, as opposed to individual expertise, becomes an important approach. Virtual worlds are typically designed to support real time social interaction; rote learning and “sage on the stage” teacher-centered techniques can be unproductive. Thus, emphasis is placed on the importance of moving toward student-centered approaches – ones that are aligned with constructivist ideals – when engaging in virtual world educational initiatives. However, pedagogical guidance for instructors venturing into these spaces is lacking, and there is no consensus regarding best practices. This study found that a lecture approach was commonly used by the SL instructors. Yet, when asked about their teaching preferences, the instructors described more student-centered pedagogies where the students would take ownership of their learning and the instructor would guide them through the process. Discrepancies were also found with statements made by SL students. The students came into the courses wanting to know how to play the SL “game.” Many students were busy professionals who wanted the instructors to give them the information needed to successfully navigate the SL space. When the sessions involved active learning tasks, however, the students became less passive and their participation levels increased. Therefore, the data analyzed in this study suggest that virtual worlds such as Second Life have the potential to be effective educational settings. Individuals in the beginner, intermediate, and advanced courses participated in class discussions that went beyond social exchanges. For

158

Chapter Eight: Conclusion the most part, the sessions were teacher-centered, particularly at the beginner course level; the students in that course consistently posted fewer messages than the instructor. The students in the course were new to SL and had spent little time in the virtual world. They had computer experience but lacked SL experience. To these students, dressing their avatar and sitting down on a sofa at the start of class were challenges in the early sessions. Thus, they needed more guidance and direction from the instructor as they learned how to be in SL. There were times when the participation level gap between the instructors and students became less pronounced. This was true for the participants in the beginner course, as well. In the aggregate, the participation levels of the intermediate students approached those of the instructors, and the participation levels of the advanced students exceeded those of the instructors. Interestingly, the higher the course level, the greater the number of instructors present for those sessions. The beginner course had one instructor, the intermediate course had two, and the advanced course had three. On the surface, it appears that an increase in the number of instructors present per session did not squelch the participation of the students; rather, the presence of the additional instructors may have encouraged student participation. Further, the instructors typically posted longer messages and words than the students. More specifically, the intermediate course instructors posted longer messages and words when compared to the instructors at the beginner and advanced levels. Conversely, the results show that the instructor at the beginner level posted the shortest messages and words. An upward pattern also emerged for the students at the beginner, intermediate, and advanced courses. The students at the beginner level posted shorter messages and words, whereas the advanced students posted longer messages and words.

159

Chapter Eight: Conclusion On the whole, virtual world classes that involved exploration and experimentation had a positive impact on the types of functional moves used by the students and the instructors. The level of cognitive messages increased for individuals who attended sessions that involved participating in field trips, interacting with guest speakers, and engaging in hands-on activities. There were also cases, such as in sessions that took place during the intermediate and advanced courses, when the proportion of cognitive messages posted by students approached or exceeded the levels of the instructors. While the high frequency of cognitive messages suggests that deep learning is possible, the virtual world educational space can also be a playful experience that promotes social interactions. In general, the students who participated in the SL courses at the three levels were more social than the instructors. Throughout the beginner, intermediate, and advanced level courses, the instructors and students encountered technical difficulties. Crashing, lag, and wardrobe malfunctions were common occurrences during these sessions. Attempts by the instructors and guest speakers to use voice presented additional difficulties that the participants had to navigate. However, despite these and other difficulties, technical messages did not dominate the discussions. Among the four functional move types, the use of technical messages consistently ranked low. There is also a downward trend for this message type as the course moves from the beginner up to the advanced level. Perhaps as SL residents gain experience in-world, they become more familiar with the technical difficulties and are able to draw from that knowledge to work through them with minimal disruption. As this summary implies, a variety of teaching, learning, and communication pedagogical practices were employed in these SL courses. However, it appeared that many of the instructors relied upon their prior experiences in the physical classroom (Natriello, 2005). Lectures and

160

Chapter Eight: Conclusion discussions in a classroom setting – a pedagogical approach commonly found in the physical classroom – were frequently employed by the SL instructors. In addition, Instructor JK mentioned that in his experience, students come into SL with a specific task in mind and enrolled in these courses to learn how to play the “game.” He made this observation about the SL students: “They don’t want to play, they want to do their task.” Further, some SL students noted that they preferred that the instructors to tell them the rules of the SL “game”; they disliked discussions involving broader concepts that would enable them to construct their own knowledge. Proactive instructor responses in the form of prewritten lectures may have been an effective way to convey large amounts of information within a limited time span, but they did not encourage student participation. The data support the need for more active learning opportunities in the SL courses. When the instructors moved away from teacher-centered approaches toward more reactive responses that enabled students to be less passive, the students responded favorably. Taking students on field trips, meeting individuals who had firsthand experience with the session topic, and responding spontaneously to information needs were wellreceived by the students. In the interviews, for example, some students remarked that they appreciated courses that adopted a more hands-on, project-based approach. They asked more questions and overall, participated more in the discussion. The use of questions by the instructors served to help students become more engaged in the course content, as well. This tactic encouraged students to discuss the course content, which can foster deep learning (e.g., Armitt et al., 2002). In cases where the instructors asked students more questions, such as session three of the intermediate course, the participation gap between these two groups became smaller. While the messages posted by the students in these sessions

161

Chapter Eight: Conclusion were shorter, the word length almost matched that of the instructors. Moreover, both groups posted comparable proportions of cognitive messages during this session. Similar findings were revealed during the second session of the advanced course, as well. As was the case with the intermediate course, the advanced students in that session posted more messages than the instructors. Also, the students’ messages included longer words. Further, the number of cognitive messages posted by the students in the second session of the advanced course exceeded that of the instructors. The technological affordances of SL had an impact on the student-instructor interaction. While some students commented that the affordances of SL create a feeling of physically “being there,” scholars have noticed ways in which presence in SL is impoverished. Jenkins (2009) contends that while the immediacy of connecting with others simultaneously in SL is powerful, the fact that residents have to think about every gesture that is performed creates a deficient experience. Moreover, some residents are distracted by their physical world life even when inworld. While there are tools designed to foster a sense of presence in SL, students may be physically and/or mentally away from the keyboard (Boellstorff, 2008). Because the SL participants are geographically dispersed, it is difficult for instructors to know when students are virtually present but physically absent. Affordances that promoted social interaction were the most frequently used at the three course levels. Because everyone in the three courses spoke English, the use of foreign language translators was unnecessary. Students used text chat almost exclusively, whereas the instructors attempted to use voice chat, as well. The literature suggests that synchronous chat tools such as the ones found in SL promote social interactions (Herring & Nix, 1997; Im & Lee, 2003/04; Paulus, 2007). For the most part, students were more social than the instructors. There were a

162

Chapter Eight: Conclusion few exceptions, however, at the intermediate and advanced course levels. The use of text chat may have encouraged the social interactions among the students and instructors. While voice chat has been an option in SL since 2007, and while instant messaging was used on occasion for private conversations between students and instructors, the instructors observed in this study relied primarily on text chat to communicate with students. Like Jenkins (2004), these instructors believed that text chat created a more egalitarian environment where no single voice could dominate. There were several unsuccessful attempts to use voice in sessions at the three course levels, but most of the instructors reverted back to text chat alone. While several comments were made about the effectiveness of the hybrid approach, when it was employed, the students’ participation levels dropped. A recent study has shown that individuals who multitask are not very good at it (e.g., Ophir, et al., 2009). Instead of giving students the option of listening or reading the lecture text, the multiple media streams may have served as a distraction. Voice chat worked in the intermediate course, but students were instructed to use text chat to communicate with the instructors and their classmates. The restrictions placed on the ways in which students were permitted to communicate with others may have been a way for the instructors to manage the riskier aspects of the technology as a learning environment (Hemmi et al., 2009; Selfe & Selfe, 1994). Further, Carr, Oliver, and Burn (2008) observed that the larger the class size, the more formal the class structure. Among the three SL courses, the intermediate course was the largest. Wedemeyer (1981) argues that technology alone will not cause educators to move away from teacher-centered practices that draw from behaviorist ideals. The findings of this research reached similar conclusions – that something more than the technology is needed to create a student-centered learning environment (Pea & Cuban, 1998). In this study, the instructors relied

163

Chapter Eight: Conclusion upon teacher-centered approaches such as lectures, and some instructors established communication rules at the start of the course. As Wilson (1999) contends, it is difficult not to reproduce traditional hierarchies, even in alternative educational spaces. Educators who investigated MUDs, such as Fanderclai (1995, 1996), observed that much of the teaching and learning in that two-dimensional virtual world was uninspired and emphasized rote learning tasks. While the technology has changed, the issues surrounding virtual world pedagogical practices remain the same. Today, educators are exploring three-dimensional virtual worlds such as SL for educational purposes in hopes of creating meaningful learning experiences for students. Yet, many of the issues and concerns associated with teaching and learning in MUDs were prevalent in the SL courses in this study. Wedemeyer (1981) claims that non-traditional learning may be the key ingredient that will transform Americans into a Learning Society. Nonetheless, simply situating a course in SL will not automatically convert the teacher-centered classroom into one where constructivist ideals are the norm. Moreover, SL alone will not transform the learning into something that is relevant to students (Wesch, 2008, 2009).

Implications With regard to virtual world teaching, many educational technologists promote the shift from teacher-centered methods that are more aligned with a behaviorist approach to ones that are more student-centered and democratic. These arguments are often made from a constructivist theory perspective. This dissertation examined the pedagogical practices of three for-fee, noncredit continuing education courses at the beginner, intermediate, and advanced levels. Prior to that, the researcher collected data from similar courses on virtual world librarianship designed

164

Chapter Eight: Conclusion for virtual world librarians. Contrary to the claims that constructivist ideals are pervasive in virtual world educational initiatives, the SL instructors who taught the sessions observed for the pilot study and this dissertation research relied heavily upon a teacher-centered approach. Structuring the session around prewritten lectures was a common pedagogical practice among these SL instructors. However, there were instances when the instruction became more studentcentered. The SL instructors relied on teacher-centered techniques such as lectures, yet they claimed that their ideal instructional models were more aligned with the constructivist epistemology. These instructors often noted that the most effective way to learn SL is by engaging in hands-on activities, experimentation, and exploration. This student-centered approach requires a time investment on the part of the instructors and the students. In the case of these SL courses, time was limited. Time was a factor for students, as well. Because many of the students in these SL courses were professionals, they came to SL with work-related information needs. They wanted the instructors to tell them what they needed to know rather than acquiring that knowledge independently. Nonetheless, in situations where these individuals participated in field trips or completed hands-on activities, the students’ contributions to the discussions increased. Moreover, the proportion of cognitive messages posted by students who were engaged in these activities also increased. Some SL instructors were adamant about establishing rules, particularly those related to communication, at the start of each session. In general, students were asked to use text chat to communicate during the session. Conversely, the instructors could use IM, text chat, voice, or a hybrid approach. Because it proved to be a more stable communication mode, however, the instructors relied primarily on text chat during these sessions. The virtual world teaching

165

Chapter Eight: Conclusion experiences of these SL instructors pre-dated the launch of voice in-world. As a result, this history with text-based communication in SL may have influenced their insistence on text chat use by students. The need for punctuation and capitalization were other rules put forth by a few of the instructors. Overall, establishing rules such as these may have been a way for the SL instructors to manage the messier aspects of teaching and learning in a virtual world. Teaching is an important skill, particularly for academic librarians. For librarians who work on the 21st century campus, teaching is increasingly an established duty in their list of responsibilities. While many librarians are expected to teach, and the notion of the “teaching librarian” is frequently noted in the literature (Albrecht & Baron, 2002), they do not learn this skill through formal coursework (e.g., Kilcullen, 1998; Walter, 2008). Instead, teaching is learned while on-the-job and through professional development. Even though LIS leaders are pushing for pedagogical training for these graduate programs, it is worth noting that college faculty members in general claim that teaching is one of the biggest challenges they face (Walter, 2005). The literature notes the absence of an established pedagogy for digital environments (Levine & Sun, 2006; Natriello, 2005), as well as a lack of pedagogical guidance for teaching in these spaces (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998). While the geographical distance between the instructors and students that the technology affords can encourage student independence (Wedemeyer, 1981), Cousin (2005) also asserts that the similarities between the physical and virtual worlds make it possible for instructors never to leave the traditional classroom. As a result, many instructors draw from their physical world classroom experiences (Natriello, 2005). To shift away from teacher-centered techniques patterned from behaviorist models, Wedemeyer (1981) argues that a new way of thinking is needed. The results of this study suggest that this

166

Chapter Eight: Conclusion shift has not occurred; teacher-centered techniques were commonly found in the courses at the three levels. As the educators working in MUD environments discovered, it is difficult for instructors to incorporate student-centered practices into their virtual world teaching. MUDs and more complex virtual worlds such as SL are designed to encourage interaction – to be places where the “sage on the stage” lecture model is unproductive. In the SL courses, the proportion of student messages was lower during lecture-based session. These class periods also included fewer cognitive contributions made by students than during times when more active learning techniques were employed. However, some educators find it difficult to adopt a new teaching philosophy (e.g., Fanderclai, 1996), which can hamper the integration of innovative educational practices into the curriculum. Bruckman (1998) and Fanderclai (1996) observed in MUDs that instructors asked students to complete rote activities rather than allowing them to engage in activities that were more meaningful to them. The results of this study suggest that student-centered approaches have the potential to be more effective than teacher-centered approaches. Nonetheless, making the shift away from behaviorist ideals that remain prevalent in today’s physical classroom is difficult, even when the instructors embrace the technology.

Recommendations for First Time SL Instructors Individuals wishing to use SL need to acquire basic technological skills. The learning curve in SL is steep, and it requires users to investigate and interact with the environment. Many individuals come into this world with little or no virtual world experience. They may have computer skills but lack SL skills. For new SL instructors, some advanced in-world preparation

167

Chapter Eight: Conclusion is necessary to ensure that the class sessions are not hampered by SL-related difficulties. Once the SL technological skills outlined in Table 20 have been acquired, individuals can use this digital environment at a more advanced level. Because individuals come to SL with different technological skill levels, some users may need to spend more time learning the basics than others. Table 20. Basic SL Technological Skills Category

Activity

Equipment

Obtain a mouse, keyboard, headset with microphone (optional), and a display device.

Interfaces

Become familiar with the viewer and contextual interfaces. The viewer interface enables users to access the SL tools and options. Through the viewer interface, users can access the SL search feature and their inventory, as well as preferences and advanced menu items. The contextual interface provides access to common tools and actions that enable interactions with other users and objects in-world.

Navigation

Practice navigating the SL environment. Move around by walking, flying, sitting, teleporting, and using SLURLs (i.e., Second Life URLs). Learning how to use the SL maps can also be helpful.

Points-of-View

Experiment with different points-of view such as camera and mouselook options. The default setting puts the point-of-view behind the user’s avatar. This can be adjusted to look anywhere in the world and also enables users to view themselves.

Appearance

Edit the appearance of the avatar. In SL, users can customize their physical features, body, and clothing. Pre-designed avatars and wearable items are also available for purchase.

Communication

Determine which mode of communication will work best for the SL course. Options include text chat, IM, and voice. While no additional

168

Chapter Eight: Conclusion equipment is needed to communicate via textbased media, voice requires a headset and a microphone. Help

Learn more about SL from the SL support portal, 38 Second Life Education Wiki, 39 and SL-related discussion lists, 40 just to name a few. Help Island, Orientation Island, and Virtual Ability are in-world spaces to learn more about SL.

Time

Recognize that education in SL requires a time commitment. It takes time for newcomers to acquire the basic SL skills. Completing educational activities that are situated in SL can be time consuming, as well.

Once the SL basic skills have been mastered, instructors should think about ways to create active learning experiences for their SL students (Table 21). In the physical world, the instructor typically has to accept the classroom as given. SL gives instructors the flexibility to modify the space to fit the learning needs of their students. For instructors who want to experiment with teaching and learning in SL, a specific classroom space may not be needed. Rather, the class members could meet in a public area. Sharing SL space with others, renting a section of an island, or buying land are options, as well.

38

http://www.secondlife.com/support http://www.simteach.com/wiki/index.php?title=Second_Life_Education_Wiki 40 To join the SL Educators (SLED) list, go to https://lists.secondlife.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/educators . 39

169

Chapter Eight: Conclusion Table 21. Constructing Student-Centered SL Learning Experiences Recommendation

Activity

Educational Location

Determine if a SL educational space is needed. Some instructors conduct class without a designated SL classroom, or they share one with other land owners. Private islands can be purchased from Linden Lab. 41 Renting land is another option.

Student Training

Require students to demonstrate that they have acquired the basic SL skills. Training sessions may be conducted in a face-to-face setting with the instructor(s) present. Alternatively, students can work independently to create their avatar and complete SL orientation activities such as Orientation Island.

Team Teach

Identify another individual to assist with the class sessions. One instructor can lead the class, and the other one can answer questions that arise during the session.

Technical Support

Learn the technical side of SL or enlist the assistance of a member of the institution’s technical support staff.

In-world communication

Determine which communication medium/media will be used during class. Text chat, IM, voice, and a hybrid approach are available.

Out-of-world communication

Explore different ways to disseminate information to students. At present, SL does not support the exchange of word processed documents and similar materials. Thus, instructors may need to set up an external forum for this purpose. The Moodle course management system, Google Groups, and email are a few examples.

Educational Activities

Design tasks that encourage active student learning. Examples of SL-related activities

41

Once instructors have determined their educational space needs, they can find out more at the following: purchasing land (http://secondlife.com/land/index.php); renting land from groups like New Media Consortium (http://virtualworlds.nmc.org/) and EduNation (http://www.theconsultants-e.com/edunation/edunation.asp). On occasion, SL land owning residents provide temporary access to their space for educators who want to experiment with teaching and learning in SL. Post a note to the SLED discussion list to determine what might be available.

170

Chapter Eight: Conclusion include taking students on field trips to educational spaces, create objects, and modify scripts. Role of the Teacher

Direct the learning process. The SL instructor should be a facilitator not a dictator.

Not only do the instructors need to acquire SL basic skills, but the students do, as well. Training sessions ensuring that all students have the core competencies will enable them to focus on the class material rather than on the technology. Even when students have completed some form of SL training, questions and problems will arise during class. It can be beneficial to have another instructor present to team teach the course – one instructor leads the sessions while the other instructor works with students who need help dealing with non-course related issues. This approach saves valuable class time, while helping to ensure that students have a successful experience. Technical difficulties can thwart an instructor’s plans for the class. Enlisting the aid of an assistant who is well-versed in the technological aspects of SL can be beneficial, as well. At present, instructors need to select ways to communicate with their students both inworld and out-of-world. In SL, text chat, IM, voice, and hybrid media are options. These media have their strengths and weaknesses, so instructors need to determine which mode will support their educational interactions. Because SL is not an information repository, it may be necessary for some instructors to establish out-of-world forums to communicate with students. Examples include course management systems, discussion groups, and email. In addition to establishing the form the class communication will take, instructors should develop activities that take advantage of the immersive and collaborative features that the environment affords. Exploring gastric disorders including ulcers and cancer at The Virtual Stomach Museum, building a three-dimensional poster presentation for a final project, or writing 171

Chapter Eight: Conclusion scripts that may be used for a classroom scavenger hunt are examples of hands-on activities that promote active student learning. In an active learning situation set in a visually rich virtual world such as SL, the instructor facilitates the learning process. Instructional methods that are more common in the physical world – transmitting facts to students through lectures – do not exploit the affordances of SL and may not be effective in this digital environment.

Limitations As with any dissertation, there are obvious limitations to this study. This research does not propose to make statements generalizable to all virtual worlds, nor even to all educational courses that are conducted in Second Life. By focusing on courses conducted by one of the pioneers in providing library and educational services to the residents of SL, the researcher hopes to build a foundation that will inform the work of later virtual world adopters. Overall, this research provides a detailed picture of how one specific virtual world, SL, is being used for educational purposes. Another limitation is that virtual worlds and the educational initiatives that take place within their boundaries are constantly changing. In the months when the data were collected for this study, upgrades were made to the SL system, which created some technical difficulties for students. Prior to the start of the new class sessions, the instructors were making changes to the course structure and to their delivery method, as well. Some of the SL instructors were beginning to experiment with voice as a way to communicate more effectively with students. One SL instructor made the decision to rely solely on voice communication tools during his sessions. Because of the ever-evolving nature of SL and the continuing education courses observed there, this research is exploratory in nature. It can also be considered to present a snapshot of SL

172

Chapter Eight: Conclusion classes at a particular point in time, which may prove useful in future work as a historical base of comparison. In an examination of learning styles of academic librarians, Choi (1989) emphasizes the changes and demands information technologies place on professional librarians. Choi notes that continuing education courses are the logical way to deal manage these changes. While this dissertation study expands upon the pilot study to examine beginner, intermediate, and advanced continuing education courses, there are other educational models that could be investigated. For example, the San Jose State University School of Library and Information Science program offers for-credit courses that take place in SL. Grades and/or a certificate of completion are typically given for the completion of a for-credit course. Thus, students may feel more compelled to attend class, complete assignments, and participate during the discussions. Another course option would be to investigate free courses in SL such as the ones offered by New Citizens Incorporated (NCI). A wide variety of courses are offered by NCI, and because they are free, a greater number of individuals may be willing to attend and participate. Conversely, the fact that the NCI courses are free may make some students place a lower value class time and feel less committed to the sessions. Overall, SL is merely one virtual world being investigated for educational uses. While scholars assert that SL is the “most advanced” and sophisticated (e.g., Salt et al., 2008) of the current assortment of virtual worlds – a space where a plethora of educational projects are underway – this does not mean that similar investigations are not taking place in other environments. OpenSimulator, Project Wonderland, and There.com are a few examples of worlds being tested by educators. At the time of this writing, however, SL remains the most popular of the group (Eduserv, 2008). Nonetheless, it is important to remember that the SL

173

Chapter Eight: Conclusion courses under investigation are small, which is another study limitation. In two courses offered during the Summer 2009 series, for example, the number of participants ranged from two to eleven students per session. Future studies of educational uses of virtual worlds can be further expanded to investigate different types of SL courses to determine the effect of course type and size on student-instructor interactions. In addition, investigation of student-instructor interactions that take place in courses with a larger number of participants, as well as those that are conducted in the less popular worlds, could be enlightening. While small courses can be beneficial to students, in that they get more individual attention from the instructor, low enrollments can be problematic. From a research standpoint, a greater number of students enrolled in a course may result in a richer data set. The Virtual World Continuing Education series offered by this group began in the summer of 2007, and around 25 students participated in those sessions. By July 2009, the enrollment levels were much lower – some classes had as few as two students in attendance. Thus, the group announced that they were discontinuing the series after September 2009. Seven courses were scheduled for August and September 2009. By the first week of August, however, only three remained on the list. The course coordinator indicated that the enrollments for four of the courses were so low that they could not afford to run them. Even though this would be the last chance to take these courses, there were cases when only one student registered for the course. In three years, conducting courses for this group went from being profitable to being a financial loss. Individuals involved in the continuing education series were not the only ones who noticed that the interest in SL was fading. Sunday, July 19, 2009 marked the end of the Eye4You Alliance Island in Teen SL, hosted by the Public Library of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County (PLCMC). A recent report on the island notes that the cost of an island in SL is considerable, and

174

Chapter Eight: Conclusion PLCMC faced budget cuts (Gallaway, 2009). As a result, the island was closed due to lack of funding. Other difficulties that led to the discontinuation of this initiative include trouble accessing SL on library computers, minimal guidance from library administration, and inadequate training opportunities. Since 2006, Eye4you Alliance Island was one of the most popular islands on the Teen Grid and managed to attract hundreds of visitors. However, in the final six months of this project, attendance on the island began to decline. The peak attendance of 10,988 visitors occurred in the fall of 2007; one year later, in the fall of 2008, island attendance dropped to 200 (Gallaway, 2009, p. 27). As was the case with the SL courses included in this study, the librarians at PLCMC recognized that interest in SL was dwindling and that their resources could be better spent elsewhere. In August 2009, Gartner released its “hype cycle” report, which included an analysis of emerging technologies in education. The report indicates that virtual worlds such as Second Life have passed their peak of inflated expectations. According to the trajectory of this model, these environments are headed into the “trough of disillusionment” phase of the hype cycle (Corbyn, 2009, n.p.). While educators claim that there are pedagogical benefits associated with the technology, the infrastructure is lacking. The downward cycle of hype that surrounds virtual worlds in the educational arena is happening even faster in the corporate sector. The diminishing interest in the SL courses that were included in this study may have been an indication of this downward trend. Regardless, it is worth noting that other SL course options continue to be offered on a regular basis. Groups like New Citizens Incorporated (NCI) continue to offer an extensive schedule of more than 60 classes and events in-world on topics such as SL skills, building basics,

175

Chapter Eight: Conclusion and animations creations. 42 For individuals looking for information beyond the SL basics, Insight Virtual College (IVC) also invites instructors to teach physical world topics such a business ethics and copyright. 43 The TLE Educational Network (TLE) is a free university based in SL; 44 their motto is “Where knowledge and education are always free.” Like Insight Virtual College, courses offered through TLE cover SL topics plus creative arts, health, math, language, religion and more. The subject matter taught in the SL courses may have influenced the pedagogical practices employed by the instructors. Lindblom-Ylänn, Trigwell, Nevgi, and Ashwin (2006), for example, examined disciplines and teaching contexts using Becher’s (1989, 1994) typology of academic disciplines. In their work, Lindblom-Ylänn et al. found evidence to suggest that instructors from “hard” disciplines (e.g., computer science, engineering, physical science, medicine) employed a more teacher-centered approach to teaching. In contrast, instructors from “soft” disciplines (e.g., social sciences, humanities) adopted more student-centered techniques. Similar findings have been reported in earlier studies conducted by Lueddeke (2003), Neumann et al. (2002), and Trigwell (2002). Many of the topics covered throughout the SL course sessions, such as building and scripting, are aligned with hard disciplines such as computer science. As Braxton (1995) found in an assessment of educational goals, hard disciplines place importance on the acquisition of facts and concepts, whereas soft disciplines emphasize general knowledge and critical thinking. Audunson (2007) suggests that library and information science (LIS) programs focusing on new technologies may concentrate on the vocational aspects of the content rather than on their

42

The NCI schedule of classes and events is available at http://nci-sl.org/education/Schedule.pdf . The URL for the Insight Virtual College blog is http://scottsecondlife.blogspot.com/2008/07/insight-virtualcollege.html . 44 The TLE website can be found at http://www.tleinsl.com/ . 43

176

Chapter Eight: Conclusion academic and theoretically rooted foundations. Moreover, as Walter (2008) asserts, education designed for instructional librarians typically concentrates on practical teaching skills. In addition, librarians are often expected to teach “one-shot” lectures, which focus on specific tools rather than on theoretical concepts (Kilcullen, 1998). Instructor JK explained that his teaching experience stemmed primarily from training sessions conducted for other librarians. SL instructors who are not librarians and who are teaching SL courses linked to softer disciplines may employ less teacher-centered techniques.

Directions for Further Research This study analyzed for-fee continuing education courses, but there are other types of educational offerings available in SL. NCI is a volunteer-based organization that is committed to educating users about SL. The course topics range from starting a business in SL to creating animated textures. While the NCI courses are typically free 45 and open to everyone, there are other SL courses that are for-fee. For example, Ball State University is sponsoring a new SL course, which began in July 2009. The course on building in SL lasts eight hours, and the cost to register is $149. The course length and price are comparable with the courses examined in this study. Another example of for-fee courses are those offered by Boise State University. These forcredit courses on topics such as virtual world research and social networking for virtual world educators last 16 weeks, and the course fees are $1,044 regardless of location. Furthermore, the University of Washington, in partnership with the institution’s iSchool, is offering a Certificate in Virtual Worlds to individuals. This program’s first cohort started in January 2009 and completed the program August 27, 2009. In August 2009, the school graduated 45

Some instructors may put out a tip jar, and on occasion a small tuition fee may be requested. This is typically stipulated on a notecard distributed prior to the first class session.

177

Chapter Eight: Conclusion its first students from that certificate program. Tuition for this program is $2,475, excluding registration fees and text books. The 2009-2010 certificate program began in October 2009. Moreover, the School of Library and Information Science (SLIS) at San Jose State University offers what they tout as the “first graduate degree course for library and information science professionals” (SJSU, 2009). In the summer of 2007, their SLIS students began to use the SL space for teaching and library service purposes. This introduction to virtual worlds also enabled these students to experiment with library space building. Like many graduates of LIS programs, new college faculty often state that they are not prepared for their role as a teacher. Moreover, the teacher-centered lecture method is commonly used across disciplines (Ballantyne et al., 1999; Neumann, 2001). Neumann (2001) asserts that few studies have investigated the ways in which teaching across disciplines varies. The SL instructors included in this study were trained librarians. Instructors from non-LIS disciplines may have taken a different approach to teaching the SL courses, which might be worth investigating. Examining the approach to SL taken by individuals with teacher training might be enlightening, as well. The SL courses under investigation were targeted toward working adult professionals, such as educators and librarians. SL attracts an older age group than worlds such as There.com and Active Worlds. The average age of SL residents is around 33; in contrast, the average age of individuals in There.com and Active Worlds is under 25 (Kzero, 2009). In some cases, the students in the SL courses have retired from their physical world careers and are now embarking on new volunteer initiatives in-world. Research shows that adults learn differently from children (Cantor, 1992; Cranton, 1992). Therefore, Malcolm Knowles (1994) developed an adult learning theory as a way to differentiate between the learning processes of children and adults. Based on a

178

Chapter Eight: Conclusion review of the literature, Peredo (2000) identified four principles of adult learning that include the following: 1)

Adults are self-directed learners;

2)

Prior life experiences are key to the adult learning process;

3)

Adults are problem-centered and to link their learning to solving problems at work; and

4)

Adults are at different developmental stages, which may impact their learning.

Moreover, adult learners may encounter obstacles that prevent them from becoming fully immersed in the virtual world and in the instruction that takes place within those boundaries (Cantor, 1992). Because many of these adult learning principles and characteristics were evident during the SL courses, andragogy (i.e., adult learning theory) might provide insight into future work on the ways in which adults learn to be in virtual worlds such as SL. The data for these pedagogical practices and technological affordances are telling. Yet, more work is needed to further investigate the impact that learning, teaching, and communication variables have on other types of educational initiatives in virtual worlds. Also, the lack of interest in these courses after being offered for two years is surprising given that other entities are beginning to offer new programs that are similar and in some cases, more expensive. Investigating how those initiatives differ from these may shed light on the dwindling interest in these SL courses. In attempting to explain this phenomenon, Instructor JK suggested that SL may not be the best place for formal education. Based on his experience with Renaissance Island in SL, this instructor noted that an informal and pervasive learning structure is more effective for the following reasons:

179

Chapter Eight: Conclusion It’s not like you have a lesson and you sit down and pursue the lesson and you do it and you master the lesson. But [you have] an environment in which you are always playing and learning and refining your knowledge and accomplishing new things. Bonk and Cunningham (1998) contend that more pedagogical guidance for the integration of new technologies into the curriculum is needed. Further, many instructors maintain the determined physical world classroom structure and do not contest the hierarchical model (Nunes, 1999). While Instructor JK described his ideal virtual world instructional model – one where the students were doing the research and creating their environment – this was not the approach followed by this individual or the other SL instructors. Thus, the actual rather than the perceived effectiveness of a pervasive, informal learning structure is unclear. Many other questions about educational initiatives in SL remain. At the same time, it is clear that improvements are needed to the SL technology itself to foster a better teaching and learning experience. More reliable voice communication tools and a better in-world information management system are two examples of improvements that could enhance the SL educational experience. In the meantime, this research has begun to examine pedagogical practices that work well with students, such as field trips and hands-on activities. Insight was also obtained into practices that are not as effective, including prewritten lectures, as well as the affordances that impact virtual classroom interactions. As Instructor JK commented in her final remarks, “SL isn’t a hammer. SL is a very, very, very complicated and sophisticated tool.”

180

REFERENCES Albrecht, R., & Baron, S. (2002). The politics of pedagogy: Expectations and reality for information literacy in librarianship. Journal of Library Administration, 36(1), 71-96. Alexander, B. (2008, July/August). Games for education: 2008. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(4), 6465. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0849.pdf Armitt, G., Slack, F., Green, S., & Beer, M. (2002). The development of deep learning during a synchronous collaborative online course. Paper presented at the CSCL 2002 conference, Boulder, CO. Retrieved April 9, 2009, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.16.8256 Arreguin, C. (2007). Reports from the field: Second Life community convention 2007 education track summary. Global Kids Series on Virtual Worlds Report. Retrieved March 23, 2008, from http://www.holymeatballs.org/pdfs/VirtualWorldsforLearningRoadmap_012008.pdf Au, W. J. (2008). The making of Second Life: Notes from the new world. New York: Collins. Au, W. J. (2009, August 13). Stat shock. New World Notes. Retrieved August 25, 2009, from http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2009/08/sl-has-133k-hardcore-users.html Audunson, R. (2007, Spring). Library and information science education: Discipline profession, vocation? Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 48(2), 94-107. Ballantyne, R., Bain, J., & Packer, J. (1999). Researching university teaching in Australia: Themes and issues in academics’ reflections. Studies in Higher Education, 24(2), 237-257. Barnett, R. (2007). A will to learn: Being a student in an age of uncertainty. New York: Open University Press. Bartle, R. (1999). Early MUD history. Retrieved February 12, 2008, from http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/mudhist.htm

181

Bartle, R. A. (2004). Designing virtual worlds. Berkeley, CA: New Riders. Bayne, S. (2005). Deceit, desire and control: The identities of learners and teachers in cyberspace. In R. Land & S. Bayne (Eds.), Education in cyberspace (pp. 26-41). New York: Routledge/Falmer. Bayne, S. (2008a, August). Higher education as a visual practice: Seeing though the virtual learning environment. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(4), 395-410. Bayne, S. (2008b, September). Uncanny spaces for higher education: Teaching and learning in virtual worlds. ALT-T, 16(3), 197-205. Preprint retrieved February 16, 2009, from http://www.malts.ed.ac.uk/staff/sian/bayne_virtual_worlds.pdf Beattie, V., Collins, B., & McInnes, B. (1997). Deep and surface learning: A simple or simplistic dichotomy? Accounting Education, 6(1), 1-12. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Bristol, PA: Society for Research into Higher Education: Open University Press. Becher, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2), 151-161. Bernard, H. R. (1995). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (2nd ed.). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. Bober, M. J., & Dennen, V. P. (2001). Intersubjectivity: Facilitating knowledge construction in online environments. Education Media International, 38(4), 241-250. Boellstorff, T. (2008). Coming of age in Second Life: An anthropologist explores the virtually human. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Bonk, C. J., & Cunningham, D. J. (1998). Searching for learner-centered, constructivist, and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. In C. J. Bonk & K. S.

182

King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 25-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Boostrom, R. (2008, November). The social construction of virtual reality and the stigmatized identity of the newbie. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 1(2). Retrieved May 4, 2009, from http://journals.tdl.org/jvwr/article/viewPDFInterstitial/302/269 Boulos, M. N. K., Hetherington, L., & Wheeler, S. (2007). Second Life: An overview of the potential of 3-D virtual worlds in medical and health education. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 24, 233-245. Bowers, C. A. (2000). Let them eat data. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Branon, R. F., & Essex, C. (2001). Synchronous and asynchronous communication tools in distance education: A survey of instructors. TechTrends, 45(1), 36, 42. Brantley, P. (2007, May 29). DLF moving into Second Life. Retrieved March 26, 2008, from http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php?cat=127 Braxton, J. M. (1995). Disciplines with an affinity for the improvement of undergraduate education. In N. Hativa & M. Marincovich (Eds.), Disciplinary differences in teaching and learning: Implications for practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bricken, W. (1990). Learning in virtual reality. Memorandum HITL-M-90-5. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Human Interface Technology Laboratory. Brown, J. S. (2002). Growing up digital: How the web changes work, education, and the ways people learn. USDLA Journal, 16(2). Retrieved February 26, 2008, from http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/FEB02_issue/article01.html

183

Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008, January/February). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. EDUCAUSE, 17-32. Retrieved January 29, 2008, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0811.pdf Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42. Brown, J. S., & Thomas, D. (2006, April). You play World of Warcraft? You’re hired! Wired, 14(4). Retrieved March 1, 2008, from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.04/learn.html Bruckman, A. (1998). Community support for constructionist learning. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing, 7, 47-86. Bruckman, A., & Resnick, M. (1995). The MediaMOO project: Constructionism and professional community. Convergence, 1(1). Retrieved April 10, 2008, from http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~asb/papers/convergence.html Bruner, J. (1997). The culture of education (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cantor, J. (1992). Delivering instruction to adult learners. Toronto: Wall & Emerson, Inc. Carr, D., & Oliver, M. (2009). Second Life, immersion and learning. In P. Zaphiris & C. S. Ang (Eds.), Social computing and virtual communities. London: Taylor and Francis. Preprint retrieved April 4, 2009, from http://learningfromsocialworlds.wordpress.com/immersionand-sl/ Carr, D., Oliver, M., & Burn, A. (2008). Learning, teaching, and ambiguity in virtual worlds. Paper presented at ReLive08 at the Open University, Milton Keynes, UK, November 2008. Retrieved April 4, 2009, from http://learningfromsocialworlds.wordpress.com/paper-forrelive-08-at-the-ou/

184

Carrington, V. (2003). The uncanny, digital texts and literacy. Language and Education, 19(6), 467-482. Choi, J. M. (1989). Learning styles of academic librarians. College and Research Libraries, 50(6), 691-699. Chou, C. C. (2001). Model of learner-centered computer-mediated interaction for collaborative distance learning. In M. R. Simonson (Ed.), Annual Proceedings of Selected Research and Development [and] Practice Papers Presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) (pp. 74-80), Atlanta, GA. Clark, D. (2008). Virtual world gets another life. The Wall Street Journal, B10. Retrieved April 3, 2008, from http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120719726445485981xd2vfr52WoJQWPksvnHkq8hze_Y_20080503.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top Clifford, J. (1983, Spring). On ethnographic authority. Representations, 2, 118-146. Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions (pp. 1-46). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2008). Web 2.0 tools and processes in higher education: Quality perspectives. Educational Media International, 45(2), 93-106. Conole, G. (2007). An international comparison of the relationship between policy and practice in e-learning. In R. Andrews & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Sage handbook of e-learning research (pp. 286-310). London: Sage. Corbyn, Z. (2009, August 20). Second Life out as techies embrace cloud email. Times Higher Education. Retrieved August 20, 2009, from

185

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=407839&encCode=1231636371 BC79478875JTBS737226611 Cousin, G. (2005). Learning from cyberspace. In R. Land & S. Bayne (Eds.), Education in cyberspace (pp. 117-129). New York: Routledge/Falmer. Cranton, P. (1992). Working with adult learners. Toronto: Wall & Emerson. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Danet, B. (1998). Text as mask: Gender, play, and performance on the internet. In S. G. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting computer-mediated communication and community (pp. 129-158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Davidson-Shivers, G. V., Muilenburg, L. Y., & Tanner, E. J. (2001). How do students participate in synchronous and asynchronous online discussions? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(4), 351-366. de Freitas, S. (2008). Emerging trends in serious games and virtual worlds. Becta: Emerging Technologies for Learning, 3, 57-72. Retrieved April 10, 2008, from http://partners.becta.org.uk/uploaddir/downloads/page_documents/research/emerging_technologies08_chapter4.pdf de Freitas, S., & Griffiths, M. (2008). The convergence of gaming practices with other media forms: What potential for learning? A literature review. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(1), 11-20. Dede, C. (2005a). Planning for neomillennial learning styles. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 28(1), 712. Retrieved October 31, 2007, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eqm0511.pdf

186

Dede, C. (2005b). Planning for neomillennial learning styles: Implications for investments in technology and faculty. In D. G. Oblinger & J. L. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the net generation (pp. 15.1-15.22). Retrieved October 31, 2007, from: http://www.educause.edu/content.asp?page_id=6069&bhcp=1 DeMar, G. (1989). Behaviorism. The Forerunner. Retrieved February 15, 2009, from http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0497_DeMar_-_Behaviorism.html Dewey, J. (1997/1938). Experience and education (1st Touchstone ed.). New York: Touchstone. Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson. Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum. Dumbleton, T. (2007). Games to entertain or games to teach? Becta: Emerging Technologies for Learning, 2, 55-63. Retrieved April 10, 2008, from http://partners.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/emerging_technologies07_chapter5.pd f EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. (2008, June 11). 7 things you should know about Second Life. EDUCAUSE. Retrieved June 13, 2008, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7038.pdf Eduserv. (2008). The Autumn 2008 Snapshot of UK Higher and Further Education Developments in Second Life. Retrieved February 14, 2009, from http://www.eduserv.org.uk/~/media/foundation/sl/uksnapshot052008/final%20pdf.ashx Eikones, P. (2005). Iconic criticism: The power and meaning of images. Retrieved February 28, 2009, from http://www.eikones.ch/starte.html

187

Electric Sheep Company. (n.d.). Solutions FAQ: What is a virtual world? Retrieved April 4, 2008, from http://www.electricsheepcompany.com/core/services/faq/ Erdman, J. (2007). Reference in a 3-D virtual world: Preliminary observations on library outreach in “Second Life.” The Reference Librarian, 47(2), 29-39. Fanderclai, T. L. (1995, January 1). MUDs in education: New environments, new pedagogies. Computer-mediated Communication Magazine, 2(1). Retrieved April 23, 2008, from http://www.ibiblio.org/cmc/mag/1995/jan/fanderclai.html Fanderclai, T. L. (1996). Like magic, only real. In L. Cherny & E. Weise (Eds.), Wired_women: Gender and new realities in cyberspace (pp. 224-241). Seattle, WA: Seal Press. Flandez, R. (2008, April 2). Chip maker trains in the virtual world. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved April 3, 2008, from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120717370600584599.html Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books. Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. New York: Bergin & Garvey. Gallaway, B. (2009, June 22). Project report: Eye4You Alliance Island in Teen Second Life. Retrieved September 7, 2009, from http://www.esnips.com/doc/1904d234-003e-46e8-93e289849536f743/Eye4You-Report-6.24.09 Gartner, Inc. (2009, July 31). Gartner’s hype cycle for education, 2009. Stamford, CT: Gartner, Inc. Gee, J. P. (1999). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). London: Routledge/Falmer. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave/St. Martin’s.

188

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. E. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gibson, J. J. (1986/1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Gonzales, C. L., & de Montes, L. S. (2002). Effective practices in distance education. Computers in Schools, 18(2), 61-77. Gosen, J., & Washbush, J. (2004). A review of scholarship on assessing experiential learning effectiveness. Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 35(2), 270-293. Greenberg, A. (2008, December 5). Second Life’s second wind. Forbes. Retrieved December 6, 2008, from http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/05/kingdon-second-life-tech-personalcx_ag_1205kingdon.html Greeno, J. G. (1989). A perspective on thinking. American Psychologist, 44, 134-141. Guest, T. (2007). Second lives: A journey through virtual worlds. New York: Random House. Halverson, R., Shaffer, D., Squire, K., & Steinkuehler, C. (2006). Theorizing games in/and education. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Learning Sciences ICLS '06. Harmon, S. W., & Jones, M. G. (2001). An analysis of situated web-based instruction. Education Media International, 38(4), 271-280. Hayes, E. (2006). Situated learning in virtual worlds: The learning ecology of Second Life. Proceedings of the Adult Education Research Conference 2006. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from http://www.adulterc.org/Proceedings/2006/Proceedings/Hayes.pdf

189

Haynes, C. (1998). Help! There’s a MOO in this class! In C. Haynes & J. R. Holmevik (Eds.), High wired: On the design, use, and theory of educational MOOs (pp. 161-176). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Haynes, C., & Holmevik, J. R. (Eds.). (1998). High wired: On the design, use, and theory of educational MOOs. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Hemmi, A., Bayne, S., & Land, R. (2009). The appropriation and repurposing of social technologies in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(1), 19-30. Retrieved February 17, 2009, from http://www.malts.ed.ac.uk/staff/sian/JCALpaper_final.pdf Herring, S. C. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(4). Retrieved August 15, 2008, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue4/herring.html Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling & J. H. Grey (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 338-376). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Herring, S. C., & Nix, C. G. (1997, March). Is “serious chat” an oxymoron? Pedagogical vs. social uses of Internet Relay Chat. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics Annual Conference, Orlando, FL. Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hughes, C. E., & Moshell, J. M. (1997, March). Shared virtual worlds for education: The ExploreNet experiment. ACM Multimedia, 5(2). Retrieved June 2, 2008, from http://www.cs.ucf.edu/~ExploreNet/papers/VA.Experiment1195.html Im, Y., & Lee, O. (2003-2004). Pedagogical implications of online discussion for preservice teacher training. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(2), 155-170.

190

Ingram, A. L., Hathorn, L. G., & Evans, A. (2000). Beyond chat on the internet. Computers & Education, 35(1), 21-35. Jenkins, C. A. (2004). The virtual classroom as ludic space. In C. A. Haythornthwaite & M. M. Kazmer (Eds.), Learning, culture and community in online education (pp. 163-176). New York: Peter Lang. Jenkins, H. (2009, July 6). The human behind the avatar. Frontline: Digital_nation: Life on the virtual frontier. Retrieved August 28, 2009, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/virtual-worlds/second-lives/thehuman-behind-the-avatar.html Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Clinton, K., Weigel, M., & Robison, A. J. (2008). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Chicago: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved March 26, 2008, from http://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9CE807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF Jennings, N., & Collins, C. (2008). Virtual or Virtually U: Educational institutions in Second Life. International Journal of Social Sciences, 2(3), 180-186. Retrieved March 20, 2008, from http://www.waset.org/ijss/v2/v2-3-28.pdf Jeong, A. (1996). The structure of group discussions in online chats. Journal of Visual Literacy, 16(1), 51-63. JISC. (2009). Effective practice in a digital age: A guide to technology-enhanced teaching and learning. Retrieved February 11, 2010, from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/effectivepracticedigitalage.pdf

191

Jonassen, D., Mayes, T., & McAleese, R. (1993). A manifesto for a constructivist approach to uses of technology in higher education. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck & D.H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 231-247). Heidelberg: SpringerVerlag. Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Jonassen, D. H., & Hodges, G. G. (1982). Student cognitive styles: Implications for library educators. Journal of Education for Librarianship, 22, 143-153. Jones, J. G., & Bronack, S. C. (2007). Rethinking cognition, representations, and process in 3D online social learning environments. In D. Gibson, C. Aldrich & M. Prensky (Eds.), Games and simulations in online learning: Research and development frameworks (pp. 89-114). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. Jung, I. (2001). Building a theoretical framework of web-based instruction in the context of distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), 525-534. Kalay, Y. E. (2004). Virtual learning environments [Special issue]. Journal of Information Technology in Construction, 9, 195-207. Retrieved October 8, 2007, from http://www.itcon.org/data/works/att/2004_13.content.04009.pdf Kazmer, M., & Xie, B. (2008). Qualitative interviewing in internet studies: Playing with the media, playing with the method. Information, Communication & Society, 11(2), 257-278.

192

Kelton, A. J. (2007, April 14). Second Life: Reaching into the virtual world for real-world learning. EDUCAUSE Research Bulletin, 2007 (17), 1-13. Retrieved February 28, 2008, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ecar_so/erb/ERB0717.pdf Kemp, J. W. (2007, August/September). Second Life: Some love it. Some hate it. But no one ignores it. Bayline: Bulletin of the San Francisco Bay Region Chapter of the Special Libraries Association, 77(6), 4-6. Retrieved March 26, 2008, from http://units.sla.org/chapter/csfo/bayline/augsep07.pdf Kendall, L. (2002). Hanging out in the virtual pub: Masculinities and relationships online. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Kilcullen, M. (1998, Summer). Teaching librarians to teach: Recommendations on what we need to know. Reference Services Review, 26(2), 7-18. Kirk, R. (2000, March). A study of the use of a private chat room to increase reflective thinking in pre-service teachers. College Student Journal, 34(1), 115-122. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. Kitchen, D., & McDougal, D. (1998-1999). Collaborative learning on the internet. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 27(3), 245-258. Knowles, M. (1994). The adult learner: The neglected species. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing. Kuzyk, R. (2008, July 8). ALA to study educational impact of gaming. Library Journal. Retrieved July 9, 2008, from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6576308.html& Kzero. (2009). Kzero universe chart Q2 2009. Retrieved August 26, 2009, from http://www.kzero.co.uk/blog/?page_id=2537

193

Latest GMI poll reveals Second Life’s potential for virtual consumer marketing and branding. (2007, April 23). GMI. Retrieved March 20, 2008, http://www.gmi-mr.com/aboutus/news/release.php?p=20070423 Lee, J. L., & Hoadley, C. M. (2007). Leveraging identity to make learning fun: Possible selves and experiential learning in massively multiplayer online games (MMOGs). Innovate, 6(3). Retrieved January 10, 2008, from http://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=348 Levin, B. B., He, Y., & Robbins, H. H. (2006). Comparative analysis of preservice teachers’ reflective thinking in synchronous versus asynchronous online case discussions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 439-460. Levine, A., & Sun, J. C. (2003). Barriers to distance education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education/EDUCAUSE. Retrieved February 12, 2008, from http://www.acenet.edu/bookstore/pdf/distributed-learning/distributed-learning-06.pdf Levy, P. (2000). Collective intelligence: Man’s emerging world in cyberspace. New York: Perseus. Lindblom-Ylänn, S., Trigwell, K., Nevgi, A., & Ashwin, P. (2006). How approaches to teaching are affected by discipline and teaching context. Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 285-298. Linden, P. (2008, May 29). Inside the lab podcast: Education in Second Life [podcast transcript of an interview with Claudia and Pathfinder Linden]. Retrieved June 3, 2008, from http://static-secondlife-com.s3.amazonaws.com/media/Inside%20the%20Lab%20podcasttranscript-Education.htm Linden, P. (2009, January 1). Looking to the New Year. Message posted to SLED electronic mailing list, archived at https://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/educators/2009January/028481.html

194

Livingstone, D., & Kemp, J. (2006). Massively multi-learner: Recent advances in 3D social environments. Computing and Information Systems Journal, 10(2). Retrieved July 11, 2007, from http://www.cis.paisley.ac.uk/research/journal/v10n2/LinvingstoneKemp.doc Lobel, M., Neubauer, M., & Swedburg, R. (2006). Comparing how students collaborate to learn about the self and relationships in a real-time non-turn-taking online and turn-taking face-toface environment. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 10(4). Retrieved April 9, 2009, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/lobel.html Ludlow, P., & Wallace, M. (2007). The Second Life Herald: The virtual tabloid that witnessed the dawn of the metaverse. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lueddeke, G. (2003). Professionalizing teaching practice in higher education: A study of disciplinary variation and ‘teaching-scholarship’. Studies in Higher Education, 28(2), 213228. Lyman, P., & Wakeford, N. (1999, Nov/Dec). Introduction: Going into the (virtual) field. The American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3), 358-357. McGonigal, J. (2008). Why I love bees: A case study in collective intelligence gaming. In K. Salen (Ed.), The ecology of games: Connecting youth, games, and learning (pp. 167-196). The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved April 3, 2008, from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dmal.9780262693646.199 McLellan, H. (2004). Virtual realities. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 461-497). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved March 29, 2008, from http://www.aect.org/edtech/17.pdf

195

Mergel, B. (1998, May). Instructional design & learning theory. Retrieved February 15, 2009, from http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm Monroe, B. (1999). Re-membering mama: The female body in embodied and disembodied communication. In K. Blair & P. Takayokshi (Eds.), Feminist cyberscapes: Mapping gendered academic spaces (pp. 63-82). Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing. Morrison, S. (2009, August 19). A second chance for Second Life. The Wall Street Journal, B5. Retrieved August 26, 2009, from http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2009/08/sl-has-133k-hardcoreusers.html Natriello, G. (2005). Modest changes, revolutionary possibilities: Distance learning and the future of education. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1885-1904. Retrieved February 5, 2008, from http://www.tcrecord.org Nesson, R., & Nesson, C. (2008). The case for education in virtual worlds. Space and Culture, 11(3), 273-284. Retrieved March 4, 2009, from http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~nesson/ed-vw1.3.pdf Neumann, R. (2001). Disciplinary differences and university teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 26(2), 135-146. Neumann, R., Parry, S., Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and learning in their disciplinary context: A conceptual analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 405-417. Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Boston: Academic Press. Norman, D. A. (1990/1988). The design of everyday things. New York, Doubleday/Currency. Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordances, conventions and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38-43.

196

Nunes, M. (1999). Virtual topographies: Smooth and striated cyberspace. In M-L Ryan (Ed.), Cyberspace textuality: Computer technology and literary theory (pp. 63-71). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Oishi, L. (2007, June 15). Surfing Second Life. Technology & Learning. Retrieved November 14, 2007, from http://www.techlearning.com/story/showArticle.php?articleID=196604483 Ondrejka, C. (2008). Education unleashed: Participatory culture, education, and innovation in Second Life. In K. Salen (Ed.), The ecology of games: Connecting youth, games, and learning (pp. 229-252). The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved April 3, 2008, from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1162/dmal.9780262693646.229 Open University. (2007, May). The schome-NAGTY Teen Second Life pilot final report: A summary of key findings and lessons learnt. SCHOME: The Education System for the Information Age. Retrieved March 8, 2008, from http://mediax.stanford.edu/seminars/schomeNAGTY.pdf Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: Early Edition. Published online before print August 24, 2009, from http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/08/21/0903620106.abstract Orvis, K. L., Wisher, R. A., Bonk, C. J., & Olson, T. M. (2002). Communication patterns during synchronous Web-based military training in problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(6), 783-795. Osman, G., & Herring, S. C. (2007). Interaction, facilitation, and deep-learning in cross-cultural chat: A case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 10, 125-141.

197

Papert, S. (1990). Introduction: Constructionist learning. In I. Harel (Ed.), Constructionist learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Media Laboratory. Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books. Park Y. J., & Bonk, C. J. (2007a, September). Is online life a Breeze? Promoting a synchronous peer critique in a blended graduate course. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(3). Retrieved April 13, 2009, from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol3no3/park.htm Park, Y. J., & Bonk, C. J. (2007b, Winter). Synchronous learning experiences: Distance and residential learners’ perspectives in a blended graduate course. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(3), 245-264. Paulus, T. M. (2003). Collaboration and the social construction of knowledge in an online learning environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington. Paulus, T. M. (2007). CMC modes for learning tasks at a distance. Journal of Computermediated Communication, 12, 1322-1345. Pea, R., & Cuban, L. (1998, February 5). The pros and cons of technology in the classroom. Bay Area School Reform Collaborative Funders' Learning Community Meeting. Retrieved March 28, 2008, from http://tappedin.org/archive/peacuban/ Pearce, C. (2004). Towards a game theory of game. In N. Wardrip-Fruin & P. Harrigan (Eds.), First person: New media as story, performance and game. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved June 2, 2008, from http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/firstperson/tamagotchi Peredo, M. W. (2000, September). Directions in professional development: Findings of current literature. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Retrieved

198

September 7, 2009, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/rcd/BE022895/Directions_In_Professional_Development.pdf Perkins, D. N. (1991, September). What constructivism demands of the learner. Educational Technology, 31(9), 19-21. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (Cook, M., Trans.). New York: International Universities Press. Poole, D. M. (2000). Student participation in a discussion-oriented online course: A case study. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 162-177. Poole, S. (2000). Trigger happy: Videogames and the entertainment revolution (1st U.S. ed.). New York: Arcade Publishing. Pope, K., Galik, B., & Bell, L. (2007). Alliance Second Life Library: End of the year report 2007. East Peoria, IL: Alliance Library System. Retrieved April 2, 2008, from http://www.alliancelibraries.info/slendofyearreport2007.pdf Rainie, L., & Hitlin, P. (2005). The internet at school. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved January 22, 2010, from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2005/The-Internet-atSchool/Data-Memo/Findings.aspx?r=1 Reeves, B., Malone, T. W., & O’Driscoll, T. (2008, May). Leadership’s online labs. Harvard Business Review, 59-66. Reid, E. M. (1994). Cultural formations in text-based virtual realities. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Rice, M. L., & Wilson, E. K. (1999). How technology aids constructivism in the social studies classroom. Social Studies, 90(1), 28-34.

199

Rose, F. (2007, July 24). How Madison Avenue is wasting millions on a deserted Second Life. Wired Magazine, 15(8). Retrieved September 12, 2007, from http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/magazine/15-08/ff_sheep Roush. W. (2007, July/August). Second earth. Technology Review. Retrieved March 19, 2008, from https://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/18911/ Ruberg, B. (2008, March 19). Innovations: How to spark remote learning. Forbes. Retrieved March 20, 2008, from http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/19/life-lessons-gaming-techinnovation08-cx_br_0319innovations.html Ruhleder, K. (2000). The virtual ethnographer: Fieldwork in distributed electronic environments. Field Methods, 12(1), 3-17. Saettler, P. (2004). The evolution of American educational technology. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Salt, B., Atkins, C., & Blackall, L. (2008, October). Engaging with Second Life: Real education in a virtual world. Retrieved February 8, 2009, from http://slenz.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/slliteraturereviewa1.pdf San Jose State University. (2009). SJSU's School of Library & Information Science Second Life portal. Retrieved August 20, 2009, from http://slisweb.sjsu.edu/sl/index.php/Main_Page Schweller, K. (1998). MOO educational tools. In C. Haynes & J. R. Holmevik (Eds.), High wired: On the design, use, and theory of educational MOOs (pp. 88-106). Ann Arbor, MI : University of Michigan Press. Second Life: Economic statistics. (2009, August 31). Retrieved September 2, 2009, from http://secondlife.com/statistics/economy-data.php

200

Second Life: Key metrics. (2008, November). Retrieved July 8, 2009, from http://static.secondlife.com/economy/stats_200811.xls Selfe, C. L., & Selfe, R. J. Jr. (1994). The politics of the interface: Power and its exercise in electronic contact zones. College Composition and Communication, 45(4), 480-504. Shils, E. (2006). Tradition (reprint ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Shirky, C. (2006, December 12). Second Life: What are the real numbers? Many2Many. Retrieved March 27, 2008, from http://many.corante.com/archives/2006/12/12/second_life_what_are_the_real_numbers.php Skinner, B. F. (1950). Are theories of learning necessary? Psychological Review, 57, 193-216. Retrieved March 4, 2009, from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Skinner/Theories/ Skinner, B. F. (1969). The technology of teaching. New York: Appelton-Century-Crofts. Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Knopf. Slater, M. (2004). How colorful was your day? Why questionnaires cannot assess presence in virtual environments. Presence, 13(4), 484-493. Squire, K. (2006). From content to context: Videogames as designed experience. Educational Researcher, 35(8), 19-29. Retrieved January 23, 2010, from http://website.education.wisc.edu/kdsquire/tenure-files/18-ed%20researcher.pdf Squire, K. (2008). Open-ended video games: A model for developing learning for the interactive age. In K. Salen (Ed.), The ecology of games: Connecting youth, games, and learning (pp. 167-196). The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved April 3, 2008, from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dmal.9780262693646.167 Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

201

Steinkuehler, C. A. (2004). Learning in massively multiplayer online games. In Y. B. Kafai, W. A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. S. Nixon & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Learning Sciences: Embracing Diversity in the Learning Sciences (pp. 521-528). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved September 20, 2007, from http://website.education.wisc.edu/steinkuehler/papers/SteinkuehlerICLS2004.pdf Steinkuehler, C. A. (2006, January). Massively multiplayer online video gaming as participation in a discourse. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 13(1), 38-52. Steinkuehler, C. A. (2008). Massively multiplayer online games as educational technology: An outline for research. Educational Technology, 48(1), 10-21. Sulčič, A. (2009). Second Life isn’t dead, but it’s a niche. iAlja. Retrieved January 13, 2010, from http://ialja.blogspot.com/2010/01/second-life-isnt-dead-but-its-niche.html Surowiecki, J. (2005). The wisdom of crowds (1st Anchor Books ed.). New York: Anchor Books. Sussman, B. (2007, August 1). Teachers, college students lead a Second Life. USA Today. Retrieved January 20, 2008, from http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-08-01second-life_N.htm Taylor, T. L. (1999). Life in virtual worlds: Plural existence, multimodalities, and other online research challenges. The American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3), 436-449. Taylor, T. L. (2002). Living digitally: Embodiment in virtual worlds. In R. Schroeder (Ed.), The social life of avatars: Presence and interaction in shared virtual environments (pp. 40-62). London: Springer-Verlag. Taylor, T. L. (2006). Play between worlds: Exploring online game culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

202

Teng, T. L., & Taveras, M. (2004-2005). Combining live video and audio broadcasting, synchronous chat, and asynchronous open forum discussions in distance education. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 33(2), 121-129. Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2007). The play of imagination: Extending the literary mind. Games and Culture. 2(2), 149-172. Tolman, E. C. (1922). A new formula for behaviorism. Psychological Review, 29, 44-53. Trigwell, K. (2002). Approaches to teaching design subjects: A quantitative analysis. Art, Design, and Communication in Higher Education, 1(2), 69-80. Turkle, S. (1997). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet (1st Touchstone ed.). New York: Touchstone. Turner, V. (1982). From ritual to theatre: The human seriousness of play. New York: PAJ Publications. Van, J. (2007, August 12). Training for the poor moves into computer age. The Chicago Tribune, pp. 5.1, 5.4. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walter, S. (2005, April). Improving instruction: What librarians can learn from the study of college teaching. Proceedings of the ACRL Twelfth National Conference, Minneapolis, MN, April 7-10, 363-379. Walter, S. (2008, January). Librarians as teachers: A qualitative inquiry into professional identity. College and Research Libraries, 69(1), 51-71.

203

Wang, A. Y., & Newlin, M. H. (2001, August). Online lectures: Benefits for the virtual classroom. T.H.E Journal, 29(1). Retrieved April 9, 2009, from http://www.thejournal.com/articles/15513 Wasik, B. (2006, September). Grand theft education: Literacy in the age of video games. Harper’s Magazine, 30-39. Waters, J. K. (2007, October). On a quest for English. THE Journal. Retrieved March 30, 2008, from http://thejournal.com/articles/21380 Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158-177. Retrieved March 1, 2009, from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Watson/views.htm Wedemeyer, C. A. (1981). Learning at the back door: Reflections on non-traditional learning in the lifespan. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: University of Cambridge. Wesch, M. (2008, Spring). Anti-teaching: Confronting the crisis of significance. Education Canada, 48(2), 4-7. Retrieved May 7, 2008, from http://www.ceaace.ca/media/en/AntiTeaching_Spring08.pdf Wesch, M. (2009, January 7). From knowledgeable to knowledge-able: Learning in new media environments. Academic Commons. Retrieved March 15, 2009, from http://www.academiccommons.org/commons/essay/knowledgable-knowledge-able Wilson, S. (1999). Pedagogy, emotion and the protocol of care. In K. Blair & P. Takayokshi (Eds.), Feminist cyberscapes: Mapping gendered academic spaces (pp. 113-151). Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing.

204

Ziegler, S. G. (2007). The (mis)education of Generation M. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(1), 69-81.

205

APPENDIX A: SECOND LIFE EDUCATIONAL SPACES Open Air Auditorium: Info Island

College Campus: Eduisland

Classroom #1: Eduisland Skybox

206

Virtual Ability

Land of Lincoln

NOAA’s Tsunami Demonstration

207

Sistine Chapel: Vassar Island

Macbeth Sim

Vannevar Bush Memorial Reading Garden: Caledon

208

Virtual Harlem

209

APPENDIX B: SECOND LIFE CONTINUING EDUCATION COURSE DESCRIPTIONS Pilot Study Course: Virtual World Librarianship What is it like to work as a librarian in the virtual world of Second Life (SL)? What skills and knowledge are needed? What resources are available? This is a hands-on course that will introduce you to providing reference services and building collections and exhibits in Second Life, to planning programs and events, and to the skills needed for the 21st century librarian in a virtual world. Week One: Introduction to Course and Reference in SL Week Two: Collections, Resources, and Exhibits in SL Week Three: Management and Programs in SL Week Four: Skills for 21st Century Librarians in Virtual Worlds Audience: Open to anyone interested in learning more about libraries and other information resources and services in Second Life. Students should feel comfortable in Second Life. Beginner Course: Second Life 101 Are you new to Second Life? Having trouble navigating, flying and getting dressed? If so, this course is for you. Second Life IS a whole new world, and we invite you to join Puglet Dancer for four fun and interactive sessions that will assist you with Second Life Basics, acquaint you with educational and other great places to go, teach you how to design an avatar - virtual persona and give you the skills you need to enjoy Second Life. Week One: Welcome to your Second Life - Basic Skills Week Two: What's all this Stuff on my Screen: Menus, Boxes, and Arrows, Oh My! Week Three: Basic Avatar Design Week Four: Places to Go, Things to See, Part I Audience: Open to anyone interested in learning how to get around in Second Life. Intermediate Course: Instructional Tools Virtual worlds are proving to be an excellent venue for classes at a distance. But like all forms of class presentation, an instructor needs to know what tools are available and how to make the best use of them. This four week class will introduce students to the educational tools available in the virtual world of Second Life. Week One: The Basics: text chat, voice, audio streams, and notecards. Week Two: Visual Aids: textures, slide shows, video streams, and lag concerns. Week Three: Immersive Environments: learning by doing, role playing, and using the environment as a tool. 210

Week Four: Integration: combining methods and augmenting virtual worlds with internet resources. Audience: Open to anyone interested in learning about instructional tools for virtual worlds. Students should feel comfortable navigating in Second life or have taken Second Life 101. Advanced Course: Setting Up an Educational Presence in Second Life Are you looking to set up an educational presence in Second Life but don’t know where to start? Join us to learn about planning, needs assessment, goals, expectations, buying or renting land, where to find help, prefab versus building, challenges, positives, teaching tools in Second Life such as Power point, class management, groups permissions, communication, and evaluating your presence once you have it set up. We will take field trips so students can see and discuss some of the educational presences in Second Life. Week One: Planning a presence in Second Life Week Two: Setting up a presence in Second Life Week Three: Managing a presence in Second Life Week Four: Evaluating a presence in Second Life Audience: Open to anyone interested in using Second Life for educational purposes. Participants should have experience navigating in Second Life.

211

APPENDIX C: UNSTRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR SECOND LIFE STUDENTS 1)

How much computer experience did you have when you entered the class?

2)

How much experience do you have in virtual worlds in general and in Second Life specifically?

3)

How comfortable are you navigating the virtual world space? Do you think your comfort level enhances or distracts from teaching and learning? If so, how?

4)

What motivated you to take a course in Second Life?

5)

How does the “classroom experience” in Second Life compare to your face-to-face education experiences?

6)

How does the “classroom experience” in Second Life compare to your other distance education experiences?

7)

What do you think is unique (positively and negatively) about learning in Second Life?

8)

What do you like most about being a student in Second Life? What do you like the least? What obstacles do you face in-world?

9)

Does Second Life as an educational environment work? If so, how does it work? Why does Second Life as an educational environment work? How does it not work?

10) How could Second Life be improved to foster teaching and learning, in your opinion? 11) How do the features of the Second Life technology make this educational experience different from the physical classroom? 12) Have you taken other Second Life courses? Which courses? Were the instructional methods different? If so, how? 13) If you have taken other Second Life-based courses, have your interactions with the instructors been similar or different? Explain. 14) How do the affordances of the Second Life technology detract from the educational experience? 15) Is there anything else you would like to share about your experiences as a student in Second Life?

212

APPENDIX D: UNSTRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR SECOND LIFE INSTRUCTORS 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) 17) 18)

How much computer experience did you have when you entered the class? How much experience do you have in virtual worlds in general and in Second Life specifically? How comfortable are you navigating the virtual world space? Do you think your comfort level enhances or distracts from teaching and learning? If so, how? How long have you taught in virtual environments? How long have you taught in Second Life? Which of these statements best describes your teaching philosophy? a. I belive students learn best when they acquire knowledge from the teacher and focus on memorization and repetition of material. b. I believe students learn best when they actively construct knowledge and make meaning of the world around them. c. I believe students learn best in a social context where they observe the behavior of others, and attempt to imitate, model, and adopt those behaviors. What motivated you to teach in this virtual world environment? How does the “classroom experience” in Second Life compare to your face-to-face education experiences? How does the “classroom experience” in Second Life compare to your other distance education experiences? What do you think is unique (positively and negatively) about teaching in Second Life? What do you like most about teaching in Second Life? What do you like the least? What obstacles do you face in-world? Does Second Life as an educational environment work? If so, how does it work? Why does Second Life as an educational environment work? How does it not work? How could Second Life be improved to foster teaching and learning, in your opinion? How do the features of the Second Life technology make this educational experience different from the physical classroom? How (if at all) do your teaching methods change at different course levels? How (if at all) do your interactions with students change at different course levels? How do the affordances of the Second Life technology detract from the educational experience? You post a large number of messages during each class session. How do you do it? Are you cutting and pasting from a pre-written script? Please explain. Is there anything else you would like to share about your experiences as an instructor in Second Life? 213

APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS The number of individuals who enrolled in these SL courses was low and ranged from four to 11. Six individuals were involved in teaching these courses – one instructor at the beginner level, two at the intermediate level, and three at the advanced level. Because the numbers were small, all course participants were invited to participate in the interviews. Anyone who expressed interest in completing the interview was included in the study. Multiple invitations and follow-up announcements were made to recruit individuals to participate. The following individuals completed an unstructured interview conducted outside class time: • • • • • • •

Student BI Student EM Student GK Student IX Student KB Instructor IE Instructor JK

214

APPENDIX F: FUNCTIONAL MOVE CODING SCHEME AND EXAMPLES Main Category

Sub-category

Description*

Examples

Conceptual

Cognitive

Understanding of the content of the current class

Does anyone remember the number of librarians using SL?

Non-conceptual

Logistical

Completing the task or activity

I apologize but I will need to leave early.

Social

Greetings, closings, small talk

And I’m pleased to meet all of you!

Technical

Concerning the use of the communication tools and the virtual world environment

We’re having grid problems again.

*Adapted from Paulus (2007), p. 137.

215

APPENDIX G: AGGREGATE STUDENT AND INSTRUCTOR PARTICIPATION LEVELS BY NUMBER AND PERCENT Beginner Course Participation Levels Participant Type

#Posts1

#Posts2

#Posts3

#Posts4

Instructor

582 (70%)

725 (68%)

579 (66%)

398 (68%)

Students

250 (30%)

341 (32%)

304 (34%)

191 (32%)

832

1066

883

589

Total

Intermediate Course Participation Levels Participant Type

#Posts1

#Posts2

#Posts3

#Posts4

Instructors

407 (47%)

509 (66%)

220 (50%)

264 (52%)

Students

134 (15%)

258 (34%)

219 (50%)

244 (48%)

Others

324 (37%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

865

767

439

508

Total

Advanced Course Participation Levels Participant Type

#Posts1

#Posts2

#Posts3

#Posts4

Instructors

578 (76%)

113 (20%)

225 (50%)

364 (77%)

Students

185 (24%)

263 (46%)

84 (19%)

108 (23%)

0 (0%)

198 (34%)

138 (31%)

0 (0%)

763

574

447

472

Others Total

216

APPENDIX H: AGGREGATE STUDENT AND INSTRUCTOR WORD COUNTS BY NUMBER AND PERCENT Beginner Course Student and Instructor Word Count Participant Type

#Words1

#Words2

#Words3

#Words4

Instructor

4,129 (76%)

4,635 (76%)

3,579 (72%)

2,317 (67%)

Students

1,312 (24%)

1,428 (24%)

1,370 (28%)

1,123 (33%)

5,441

6,063

4,949

3,440

Total

Intermediate Course Student and Instructor Word Count Participant Type

#Words1

#Words2

#Words3

#Words4

Instructors

4,615 (52%)

4,887 (71%)

1,979 (53%)

2,486 (69%)

Students

854 (10%)

2,012 (29%)

1,723 (47%)

1,105 (31%)

Others46

3,377 (38%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

8,846

6,899

3,702

3,591

Total

Advanced Course Student and Instructor Word Count Participant Type

#Words1

#Words2

#Words3

#Words4

Instructors

4,624 (74%)

1,249 (28%)

1,656 (50%)

4,435 (84%)

Students

1,619 (26%)

1,958 (44%)

383 (12%)

894 (16%)

Others47

0 (0%)

1,229 (28%)

1,252 (38%)

0 (0%)

6,243

4,436

3,291

5,329

Total 46

During the first intermediate session, the students attended a panel discussion on Steampunk. The Others are individuals who attended that discussion but were not registered as students in the course. 47 Students in the advanced course went on field trips to see how other educators set up their educational presence in SL. The Others for this course were invited guest speakers.

217

APPENDIX I: AGGREGATE STUDENT AND INSTRUCTOR CHARACTER COUNTS BY NUMBER AND PERCENT Beginner Course Student and Instructor Character Counts Participant Type

#Char1

#Char2

#Char3

#Char4

Instructor

16,026 (75%)

17,899 (76%)

14,019 (72%)

9,125 (67%)

Students

5,345 (25%)

5,692 (24%)

5,426 (28%)

4,557 (33%)

21,371

2,3591

19,445

13,682

Total

Intermediate Course Student and Instructor Character Counts Participant Type Instructors Students Others Total

#Char1

#Char2

#Char3

#Char4

21,299 (52%)

21,433 (71%)

8,910 (54%)

10,533 (70%)

3,740 (9%)

8,782 (29%)

7,559 (46%)

4,414 (30%)

15,779 (39%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

40,818

30,215

16,469

14,947

Advanced Course Student and Instructor Character Counts Participant Type Instructors

#Char1

#Char2

#Char3

#Char4

19,598 (73%)

5,110 (27%)

7,513 (52%)

20,660 (84%)

7,162 (27%)

8,776 (46%)

1,604 (11%)

4,061 (16%)

Others

0 (0%)

5,146 (27%)

5,470 (38%)

0 (0%)

Total

26,760

19,032

14,587

24,721

Students

218

APPENDIX J: AGGREGATE STUDENT AND INSTRUCTOR FUNCTIONAL MOVES BY NUMBER AND PERCENT Beginner Course Functional Moves: Session 1 Participant Type

Cognitive

Logistical

Social

Technical

Instructor1

374 (81%)

113 (71%)

79 (45%)

25 (35%)

Students1

90 (19%)

47 (29%)

97 (55%)

47 (65%)

464

160

176

72

Total

Intermediate Course Functional Moves: Session 1 Participant Type Instructors1 Students1 Others1 Total

Cognitive

Logistical

Social

Technical

243 (43%)

121 (74%)

96 (35%)

14 (21%)

90 (16%)

15 (9%)

42 (15%)

9 (13%)

234 (41%)

28 (17%)

138 (50%)

45 (66%)

567

164

276

68

Advanced Course Functional Moves: Session 1 Participant Type

Cognitive

Logistical

Social

Technical

Instructors1

340 (25%)

111 (20%)

62 (47%)

14 (33%)

Students1

114 (75%)

27 (80%)

54 (53%)

7 (67%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

454

138

116

21

Others1 Total

219

Beginner Course Functional Moves: Session 2 Participant Type

Cognitive

Logistical

Social

Technical

Instructor2

320 (82%)

180 (71%)

122 (42%)

43 (54%)

Students2

69 (18%)

72 (29%)

172 (59%)

36 (46%)

389

252

294

79

Total

Intermediate Course Functional Moves: Session 2 Participant Type

Cognitive

Logistical

Social

Technical

Instructors2

315 (65%)

113 (86%)

96 (52%)

19 (39%)

Students2

173 (35%)

19 (14%)

90 (48%)

30 (61%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

488

132

186

49

Others2 Total

Advanced Course Functional Moves: Session 2 Participant Type Instructors2 Students2 Others2 Total

Cognitive

Logistical

Social

Technical

56 (53%)

47 (28%)

40 (40%)

32 (22%)

162 (18%)

44 (30%)

46 (34%)

10 (70%)

90 (29%)

66 (42%)

30 (26%)

4 (9%)

308

157

116

46

220

Beginner Course Functional Moves: Session 3 Participant Type Instructor3

Cognitive 257 (75%)

Logistical 160 (67%)

Social 122 (48%)

Technical 13 (36%)

Students3

86 (25%)

80 (33%)

132 (52%)

23 (64%)

343

240

254

36

Total

Intermediate Course Functional Moves: Session 3 Participant Type

Cognitive

Logistical

Social

Technical

Instructors3

125 (50%)

70 (47%)

30 (44%)

15 (54%)

Students3

125 (50%)

78 (53%)

38 (56%)

13 (46%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

250

148

68

28

Others3 Total

Advanced Course Functional Moves: Session 3 Participant Type Instructors3

Cognitive

Logistical

Social

Technical

111 (11%)

55 (9%)

36 (39%)

20 (43%)

Students3

26 (48%)

8 (61%)

38 (37%)

26 (33%)

Others3

93 (40%)

27 (30%)

24 (24%)

15 (25%)

230

90

98

61

Total

221

Beginner Course Functional Moves: Session 4 Participant Type

Cognitive

Logistical

Social

Technical

Instructor4

121 (72%)

155 (76%)

62 (47%)

20 (37%)

Students4

47 (28%)

50 (24%)

70 (53%)

34 (63%)

168

205

132

54

Total

Intermediate Course Functional Moves: Session 4 Participant Type

Cognitive

Logistical

Social

Technical

Instructors4

89 (68%)

142 (53%)

47 (36%)

13 (54%)

Students4

41 (32%)

128 (47%)

85 (64%)

11 (46%)

0

0

0

0

130

270

132

24

Others4 Total

Advanced Course Functional Moves: Session 4 Participant Type Instructors4 Students4 Others4 Total

Cognitive

Logistical

Social

Technical

280 (80%)

82 (71%)

24 (50%)

1 (100%)

71 (20%)

33 (71%)

24 (50%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

351

115

48

1

222

APPENDIX K: SECOND LIFE INSTRUCTIONAL TOOLS The following are instructional tools used or discussed during the SL courses included in this study. Classroom information objects Assessment tools Automaton avatars Exhibits Kiosks Pictures/posters PowerPoint Reading and listening stations Slideshow devices Sound Student toolbox Surveys Textures Video streams Visitor counters Whiteboards Gifts Clothes Folders Group invitations Hair Kiosks Notecards Landmarks Presentations Scripts Shapes Skins Teleports Textures Out-of-world resources Articles Blogs Books Email addresses Facebook 223

Flickr Google Groups Journals Moodle Reports Skype Twitter Virtual world groups (e.g., Association of Virtual Worlds) Videos (e.g., YouTube) Websites SL educational spaces – a few examples Campus classroom Conferences Exhibits Events Free course sites (e.g., New Citizens Incorporated) Hunt sites (e.g., Make Him Over Hunt) Land of Lincoln NOAA Virtual Tsunami Open Air Auditorium Programs/panel discussions Simulations Sistine Chapel Virtual Ability Virtual Harlem SL environmental tools Group notices Landmarks SL menu SL search Teleporting Text chat transcripts Social network resources Appearance Instant messaging (IM) Multiple avatars Text chat Voice chat Profiles Referrals to avatars 224

Wearable information objects Animations Clothing/costumes Heads up displays (HUDs) Foreign language translators

225

APPENDIX L: SECOND LIFE AVATAR TRANSFORMATIONS Session One

Session Two

Session Three

Session Four

226

CURRICULUM VITAE FOR SHARON M. STOERGER 765 N. Woodbridge Drive Bloomington, IN 47408

(812) 331-1689—phone [email protected]

Education •

August 2005-present: Indiana University, Bloomington, IN Ph.D. Student – School of Library and Information Science Nomination to candidacy approved December 16, 2008



1993-1994: University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL Master of Library and Information Science



1991-1993: University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE Master of Business Administration



1987-1991: University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL Bachelor of Science, Broadcast Journalism

Experience •

Spring 2010: School of Library and Information Science (SLIS) Indiana University, Bloomington, IN Adjunct Instructor – S544: Gender and Computerization



Spring 2009: School of Library and Information Science (SLIS) Indiana University, Bloomington, IN Adjunct Instructor – S544: Gender and Computerization



Fall 2008: Instructional Systems Technology, School of Education Indiana University, Bloomington, IN Instructional Assistant (Dr. Curt Bonk) – R685: The Web 2.0 and Participatory eLearning



Summer 2008-March 2009: Indiana University, Bloomington, IN Editor o Bonk, C. (2009, July). The world is open: How web technology is revolutionizing education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.



Summer 2008: Indiana University, Bloomington, IN Editor o Hara, N. (2008). Communities of practice: Fostering peer-to-peer learning and informal knowledge sharing in the work place. New York: Springer.



Spring 2008: School of Library and Information Science (SLIS) Indiana University, Bloomington, IN Adjunct Instructor – S544: Gender and Computerization



2006-March 2008: The Information Technology Workforce Project (ITWF) Indiana University, Bloomington, IN Graduate Research Assistant – National Science Foundation (NSF) funded project (Principal Investigators: Jean Robinson, Susan Herring, Christine Ogan, and Manju Ahuja) o Organized the conference/workshop “Gender Equity in IT Education,” funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) o Assisted in the development and implementation of survey instruments o Transcribed and code interview data (N6) o Analyzed interview and survey data (N6, SPSS) o Coordinated the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and NSF review efforts



2002-July 2005: Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research The University of Illinois, Urbana, IL Human Subjects Research Specialist o Analyzed federal and university policy requirements o Conducted reviews of research protocols o Developed and maintained databases and web pages o Monitored development and progress of University of Illinois start-up companies o Supervised Institutional Review Board support staff o Grant Reviewer – National Science Foundation (NSF), Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions (Illinois Institute of Technology)



2001-2002: College of Business The University of Illinois, Urbana, IL Commerce Alumni & External Affairs o Liaison to University of Illinois alumni o Coordinated and organized special events o Compiled data relevant to alumni committees



1999-2001: The Gale Group Farmington Hills, MI Senior Account Executive o Managed a sales budget of $2.4 million o Developed client base (Indiana and Kentucky) o Promoted from Junior Account Executive at the Gale Group

Junior Account Executive o Managed a sales budget of $1.8 million o Coordinated sales efforts of Illinois account executives o Developed client base (Illinois) o Promoted from Account Manager/Training Consultant at the Gale Group Account Manager/Training Consultant o Managed the development of a new training division o Developed training and consulting initiatives o Consulted on database design and usability o Presented new innovations at state-wide conferences and annual meetings •

1996-1999: Danville Area Community College Danville, IL Head of Instruction/Public Services Librarian o Managed the development of an electronic-resources research program o Developed course-specific web pages o Advised students and faculty on research endeavors o Supervised library staff and student employees o Tenure granted: 1998



1997-1999: Business & Economic Institute Danville, IL Training Consultant o Implemented community Internet classes o Developed Internet course materials o Instructed faculty, staff, students and community members



1995-1996: Eastern Illinois University Charleston, IL Visiting Professor/Reference Librarian o Advised students and faculty on research endeavors o Integrated a research component into the established curriculum



1994-1995: Kankakee Public Library Kankakee, IL Head of Reference o Managed information retrieval services o Supervised department staff members o Coordinated the selection and implementation of electronic resources



1994: Central Community Library District Clifton, IL Regional Demonstration Project Research Consultant

o Synchronized efforts of key stakeholders in the development of a local resource for educational and recreational purposes o Prepared promotional materials for the project •

1993-1994: Lincoln Trail Libraries System Champaign, IL Research Assistant for Planning o Chief advisor to conduct long range strategic planning o Conducted data mining and statistical analysis o Developed and implemented statistical databases o Editor of the Lincoln Trail Library System: Long Range Strategic Plan

Publications •

Hara, N., Shachaf, P., & Stoerger, S. (2009, December). Online communities of practice typology revisited. Journal of Information Science, 35(6), 740-757.



Stoerger, S. (2010, in press). In a virtual classroom, Who has a “voice”? A discourse analysis of student-instructor interactions in two Second Life-based courses. In J. Park & E. Abels (Eds.), Interpersonal relations and social patterns in communication technologies: Discourse norms, language structures and cultural variable. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Stoerger, S. (2009, August). A pedagogical odyssey in three-dimensional virtual worlds: The SECOND LIFE model. In S. Yuen & H. Yang (Eds.), Collective intelligence and elearning 2.0: Implications of web-based communities and networking. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Stoerger, S. (2009, July 6). The digital melting pot: Bridging the digital native-immigrant divide. First Monday, 14(7). Retrieved July 6, 2009, from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2474/2243 Stoerger, S. (2008, October-December). Review of the book Brave new classrooms: Democratic education & the internet. The Information Society, 24(5), 360-361. Stoerger, S. (2008). Review of the books Online collaborative learning: Theory and practice and Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(2). Retrieved August 27, 2008, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/497/1072 Stoerger, S. (2008, January/February). Virtual worlds, virtual literacy: An educational exploration. Knowledge Quest, 36(3), 50-56. Stoerger, S. (2007). ‘Cause you’ve gotta have friends: Peer-to-peer learning in Second Life. In Web 2.0 and emerging learning technologies [Wikibook chapter]. Retrieved December 8, 2007, from http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Web_2.0_and_Emerging_Learning_Technologies/Learning _Theory Stoerger, S. (2007). Review of the book Good video games + good learning: Collected essays on video games, learning and literacy. The International Review of Research in



• • •

• •



• • • •

Open and Distance Learning, 8(3). Retrieved December 5, 2007, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/498/958 Stoerger, S. (2007). Virtually learning: The education experience in Second Life. [Wikibook chapter]. Retrieved December 8, 2007, from http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Web_2.0_and_Emerging_Learning_Technologies/Assessing Stoerger, S. (2005, July). Sociological ethics. In C. Mitch am (Ed.), The encyclopedia of science, technology, and ethics. Farmington Hills, MI: Macmillan Reference USA. Stoerger, S. (2004). Review of Lost paradises and the ethics of research and publication. Journal of Anthropological Research, 60(3), 451-452. Stoerger, S., Herring, S., & Kouper, I. (2006). "Great job, Quester!" Assessing language skills on Quest Atlantis. Texas Linguistics Forum, 50.

Proceedings •

Herring, S. C., Paolillo, J. C., Ramos Vielba, I., Kouper, I., Wright, E., Stoerger, S., Scheidt, L. A., and Clark, B. (2007). Language networks on LiveJournal. Proceedings of the Fortieth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press. http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/hicss07.pdf [Nominated for Best Paper prize.]



Stoerger, S. (2007). I'm not a doctor, but I play one on the web: Credibility, funding, and interactivity on health organization websites. Proceedings of the 70th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 44.

Presentations • •



• •

Hara, N., Shachaf, P., & Stoerger, S. (2006, November). Online communities of practice typology revisited. Presented at the annual conference of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Austin, TX. Herring, S., Clark, B., Kouper, I., Paolillo, J., Ramos-Vielba, I., Scheidt, L. A., Stoerger, S., & Wright, E. (2006, April). Linguistic diversity and language networks on LiveJournal. Paper presented at the 2006 International Sunbelt Social Network Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia. Herring, S., Clark, B., Kouper, I., Mercure, S., Paolillo, J., Scheidt, L. A., Stoerger, S., Welsch, P., & Wright, E. (2005, October). Conversation and connectivity in the Blogosphere. Paper presented at the Sixth Annual Conference of the Association of Internet Researchers. Stoerger, S. (2010). Learning by Living in (Second) Life: An Ethnographic Approach. Presentation at the 31st Annual Ethnography in Education Research Forum, February 2627, 2010, Philadelphia, PA. Stoerger, S. (2009). Looking forward in the rear view mirror: Women’s roles in libraries. Presentation at the American Library Association Conference – Association of College and Research Libraries Women's Studies Section, July 9-15, 2009, Chicago, IL.

• • • • • • • • •

Stoerger, S. (2009). The disadvantaged majority: Women’s roles in libraries. Presentation at the History of Libraries course, June 8, 2009, Bloomington, IN. Stoerger, S. (2008, October). The facts of virtual life: Education and the Second Life experience. Presentation at the SLIS Doctoral Forum 2008, Bloomington, IN. [Third prize] Stoerger, S. (2008, February). The 5 bs. Art show opening, Feminist methods: Photovoice, February 20, Bloomington, IN. Stoerger, S. (2007). Are you experienced? College students and early computer experience. Paper presented at the ITWF: Gender and IT Education Conference, September 28-30, 2007, Bloomington, IN. Stoerger, S. (2006, October). Talking 'bout a revolution: Blogging and podcasting in education. Poster session presented at EDUCAUSE 2006, Dallas, TX. Stoerger, S. (2006, September). Tales of a fourth grade quester. Language sophistication in Quest Atlantis. Paper presented at the SLIS Doctoral Forum 2006, Bloomington, IN. Stoerger, S. (2006, April). Going to change my way of thinking: Blogging in education. Paper presented at the ACRL/CNI/EDUCAUSE Virtual Conference. Abstract retrieved April 15, 2006, from http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlevents/virtualconfpostersession.htm Stoerger, S. (2006, January 20). Podcasting in higher education. Paper presented at the Web 2.0 and Communities of Practice Conference. http://conversations.cpsquare.org/[email protected]@.3bb08b03 Stoerger, S., Herring, S., & Kouper, I. (2006). "Great Job, Quester!" Assessing Language Skills on Quest Atlantis. Paper presented at the 2006 Symposium about Language and Society - Austin (SALSA). Abstract retrieved April 15, 2006, from http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/salsa/Program2006.html

Awards • • • • •

SLIS Merit Scholar – Spring 2009 Margaret Griffin Coffin Fellowship - 2008-2009 academic year Rufsvold Fellowship - 2008-2009 academic year SLIS Merit Scholar - 2007-2008 academic year GAANN award recipient - 2006-2007 academic year

Service In addition to my work on the NSF-funded IT Workforce project, I was also a member of the (We)blog Research on Genre Project (BROG) in SLIS from Fall 2005-Spring 2007. In 2005, I was a volunteer researcher on the NSF-funded Quest Atlantis (QA) project (Principal Investigators: Sasha Barab, Susan Herring, and Dan Hickey). Currently, I am a member of the LIS Educators in a Virtual World group, which is organized by the Graduate School of Library and Information Science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the Alliance Library System in East Peoria, Illinois.

For the 2008-2009 academic year, I took over the duties of the SLIS Doctoral Student Association (DSA) webmaster. Also, I was also the coordinator for the SLIS Friday Conversation series. On February 20, 2009, I attended the Preparing Future Faculty Graduate Student Conference (http://www.indiana.edu/~pffc/) conducted on the Indiana University, Bloomington campus. For the 2009-2010 academic year, I will be a member of the advisory board for the Women in Science Program (WISP) at Indiana University. Article and chapter reviews: 1. (2010, February). Reviewed an article on sexual intent in digital environments for the Journal of Computer-mediated Communication. 2. (2009, April). Reviewed an article on virtual world interfaces for the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 3. (2009, March). Reviewed a chapter for J. Park & E. Abels (Eds.), Interpersonal relations and social patterns in communication technologies: Discourse norms, language structures and cultural variable. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. [The chapter examined identity in virtual worlds.] 4. (2008, October). Reviewed a chapter for S. Yuen & H. Yang (Eds.), Collective intelligence and e-learning 2.0: Implications of web-based communities and networking. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. [The chapter examined the use of wikis to support collaboration.] 5. (2008, October). Reviewed a chapter for S. Yuen & H. Yang (Eds.), Collective intelligence and e-learning 2.0: Implications of web-based communities and networking. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. [The chapter investigated web-based video for e-learning.] 6. (2008, October). Reviewed a chapter for S. Yuen & H. Yang (Eds.), Collective intelligence and e-learning 2.0: Implications of web-based communities and networking. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. [The chapter explored the use of Second Life for second language learning.] 7. (2007, August). Reviewed an article for E. M. Nussbaum & R. C. Anderson (Eds.). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, & learning [Special issue]. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 8. (2007, Spring). I reviewed six abstracts for the AoIR Internet Research 8.0 conference. [The topics ranged from blogs in academia and the Internet and education to communication in the 3D virtual world Second Life.] 9. (2007, February). Reviewed a chapter for S. Kelsey & K. St. Amant (Eds.), Handbook of research on computer-mediated communication. Hershey, PA: Idea Group, Inc. [The chapter was related to virtual communities.] 10. (2007, February). Reviewed a chapter for S. Kelsey & K. St. Amant (Eds.), Handbook of research on computer-mediated communication. Hershey, PA: Idea Group, Inc. [The chapter compared HCI and face-to-face interactions in educational settings.]

Computer Skills Mac and PC Software: Microsoft Office Suite: Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Access, Publisher Other: Atlas.ti, FilemakerPro, N6, SPSS (menu and syntax), Ucinet6 Web Development Tools: HTML, Dreamweaver, Fireworks Data Searching Skills: Internet/web, research databases such as InfoTrac, FirstSearch, EBSCO, OVID, ProQuest, DRA, Epixtech, Endeavor Selected Websites • • • •

Blogging in Education http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~sstoerge/edublog.htm Podcasting in Higher Education http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~sstoerge/podhe.htm It's Not Whether You Win or Lose, but How You Play the Game: The Role of Virtual Worlds in Education http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~sstoerge/virtualworlds.htm Voices in Cyberspace: Women in the Middle East North African (MENA) Region http://www.web-miner.com/menavoice.htm

Other topics of interest: • • •

Ethics Index http://www.web-miner.com/ethicsindex.htm Distance Education Index http://www.web-miner.com/deindex.htm Library Support for Distance Learning http://www.lis.uiuc.edu/~b-sloan/libdist.htm Bernie Sloan contributed to the design and development of this website.

Personal Citation Indexes (PCIs): • • •

Business Ethics PCI http://www.web-miner.com/busethicspci.htm Library Support for Distance Learning PCI http://www.web-miner.com/libdistpci.htm Plagiarism PCI http://www.web-miner.com/plagiarismpci.htm

Professional Affiliations American Library Association (ALA) – Association of College and Research Libraries: Distance Education and Women’s Studies Section, American Sociological Association (ASA) – Communication and Information Technologies Section, American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T), Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR), Association of Library and Information Science Education (ALISE) – Gender Issues SIG, Computer Science Teacher Association