Students in Second Life: The Roller Coaster Ride of a Shifting Paradigm

-- adventures in online courses conducted in part in a virtual synchronous environment . . . the rules themselves are changing

Eileen.oconnor@esc.edu / heather.meyer@esc.eduEmpire State College (SUNY) – May 2009

Background on students and courses; some examples

Reports on selected students works; some quotes

Interpretation by instructor Is there a conceptual framework? What

about a possible metaphor? Additional, if time permits: tips on

integrating SL use into your courses

The Many Roller Coasters When Incorporating SL

Your own learning: tech & ambiguity

Tech: SL availability / student support

Students: how can their uses, complaints & ideas inform an instructor?

Course: objectives, design & assessment

Demographics TOTAL Course 1 Course 2 Course 3

Female 15 5 5 5

Male 19 2 10 7

Age: 23 - 29 4 2 2 0

Age: 30 - 39 14 1 6 7

Age: 40 - 49 13 3 6 4

Age: 50 + 3 1 1 1

Courses: time frames, focus, and student experience

MAT Science Center (under revamping)

Students across the state give virtual presentations

Meeting the Dean

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE)

Class meeting using ISTE space

National Oceanographic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

NOAA – virtual, real-time weather Map (Northeast)

SL Expectations in Course 1

More on this course in the paper that will be submitted

SL Expectations in Course 2

SL Expectations in Course 3

-What follows are the resultsfrom committee reports and projects

Course 2: committees make SL suggestions

• At semester’s end, students chose committees: – they collaborated on improving SL use– committees: SL logistics ; layout-physical; SL uses

• Documented with Snapshots and PowerPoint's that were then posted in the course: – Allows for a quasi-visual way to explain learning –

for assessment purposes – More creative – less resistance to doing the work

The layout committee considered physical and social spaces

Area addressed What wanted:

Type of spaces: Lounging spaces – open areas

Open booths

Schedule posting areas for meeting

Signage: Simple but informative – not cluttered

Mapping: Teleports to get around ; pathways & boardwalks; “You are here”

Notice how students gain rich, intuitive understanding of the environment after the initial adjustment - no need to “teach” about ways to use SL

The layout committee is clear about their expectations (images are from the report)

The logistics committee addressed working within SL, in general

Committee recommended uses: Amplification

Small group discussions 5 participants maxAttending lecture & events At other islands too In addition to face-to-faceFor presentations & for orientation

Value to administration too; beyond the courses themselves

Give options for attending . . . such as, attend 3 out of 5 For office hours

Scheduling becomes an issue though

Logistics committee noted problems

Large group activities are difficult to organizeVertigo . . . for some (need better navigation & camera skills) Losing the flexibility of online Some had trouble signing on at homeToo much too soon -- spend more time orienting

NOTE: really tech support issues here; there is an Orientation Island

SL makes an asynchronous class more time restrictive for faculty too

Still committees concluded . . .

Many had said they were skeptical at first but could see the value towards the end – they like the more “real life” interactions

Greater flexibility with timing two days for

class meetings Staging the introduction into SL

scaffolded assignments and discussion topics in SL

Useful areas cited by third course students– spontaneous in blue / prompted (required within the assignment) in pink

Most significant & reasonable student complaints

• Learning curves & ways to reduce it– Technology problems for some

• Scheduling of meetings times – In online classes, they were used to more

autonomy

• Issues with teams / collaborations – Similar to other times when teams are used

some poor participators; some timing issues

Student comments – T&L

• “I really like the idea of the instructor commenting during discussions but in SL it was also nice to hear our instructor talk directly to us, it made her and the course more genuine.”

• “I liked seeing other avatars change, although I didn't change my own”

• “Exploring the virtual environment together helped to develop a feeling of comaraderie”

Evidence of immersion in & acceptance of virtual reality

• Rich suggestions from students– NOTE: the course did not “teach” SL uses beyond

experiencing & visiting

• Suggestions map to the real world:– boardwalks & pathways (when not needed); want

comfortable, familiar structures

• Students stop positing this is make-believe: – casting a rich range of real world topics and

activities into this space; non-threatening to teens

Evidence of immersion in & acceptance of virtual reality

• Student reflect on new types of communications and interaction– would be hard to get this level of dialog and

reflection from discussions alone (online / f2f / in papers)

– the immersion generates new levels of thinking about innovative uses of technology that might otherwise be outside the realm of this group of “older” students

Students in an immersive environment

• Significant increase in student interaction, collaboration and empathy (yes, they whine together too) in these 100% online classes

• Natural SL leaders emerge – often w/ more technical yet still with good interpersonal skills

• Through their immersion, students gain an intuitive understanding of the environment as evident by their rich recommendations for grad school & for their K12 students

Benefits perceived by instructor

• Better knowledge of students but more importantly students have better knowledge of each other; bonding – learning together in a new way

• Instructor learns from analysis of each class reports & debriefings course improvements

• Richer understanding of all tech – through the immersion / spontaneity / modeling in SL

• More ways to teach, learn, create, and explore no longer the same classroom limitations

Cautions noted by instructor

• Students want choice – but some may opt out if possible; you need to bring them in if you are committed to this type of learning

• Structured meetings were still used to avoid frustration– but I’m looking for better ways to have

spontaneous interactions – but be careful about how much new tech you put in one course

Best expressed through an instructional metaphor: like designing an intelligent experience (field trip /

discussions / role playing / construction) . . . with an assessment

More advanced uses

Then what can SL bring to a course?

• Johnson 2008 – claims SL isn’t really new; use your field in the world: – Move beyond text for case studies; – Adapt or modify from current “real world”

practice, ie. role playing – Find how learning is addressed and assessed in

the field & bring this to your course

• VERY good advice – but are faculty ready for the openness?

You can feel like . . .

• An event planner at a conference • Where you are responsible for the getting

everyone there and making them happy• AND being sure that the conference itself is

successful

. . . gleaned from the school of hard knocks

Designing an SL portion to a courseCourse objectives Is there a requirement for collaboration, sharing, discussion?

Meeting arrangements Some required time, at least initially

Give multiple times for participation if online course

Tasks & conversations Discussions / role playing / guest speakers

Overheard – real discussions

Collaboration spaces You don’t have to be there all the time

Require documenting & reporting; snapshots in

Shared experiences Field trips / presentations / scavenger hunts

Put PowerPoint into SL for presentations (it’s easy)

Methods of gaining SL expertise

Tutorial / handouts / peer tutoring / tech support

Posit, expect and support awkwardness & learning curve

Ways of communicating Voice chatting (w/ headsets) is useful with smaller group

In larger groups, determine who speaks and have others use text

Considering students & their learning curve

Issue Ways instructor can help

- Technology requirements - In the school lab if possible; alternatives if necessary

- Finding time to learn SL - Embed learning into an early assignment

- Time to overcome awkwardness

- Instructor can model learning and awkwardness (generally easy to do); have a field trip

- Problems with scheduling - Have multiple sessions and/or times & ways to participate

- Problems with voice chatting

- Work with them on their audio / headset settings; get tech help if possible; use text chatting as a backup

- Problems with collaborating - Provide structured / required interactions until groups can work on their own

- Problems with valuing SL - Don’t expect all will “like” SL at the start; over time more come to value the experience

Overall recommendations

• Stage SL introduction / test along the way • Attend to scheduling • Integrate into course objectives / require

reflection & application / assess• Value and require collaboration / facilitate• Gather suggestions from students for future • Find ways to work across courses & program

Additional info & links• www.slideshare.com/eoconnor - current & past presentations,

including those by students on uses of SL (not all are “perfect”) & instructor on use & curriculum issues

• Johnson & Levine (2008); Virtual Worlds: Inherently Immersive, Highly Social Learning Spaces. Teaching into Learning, Vol 47, Issue 2, p. 161 – 170

• O’Connor, E. A. Becoming a Virtual Instructor: How Can Higher Education Faculty Prepare for Second Life? (published with E-Learn conference proceedings in November 2008 in Las Vegas)

• O’Connor, E. A. and Sakshaug, L. Preparing for Second Life: Two Teacher Educators Reflect on Their Initial Foray into Virtual Teaching and Learning (Journal of Educational Technology Systems, Volume 37, No. 3, 2008-2009)