Whereas AC and others have pointed out some obvious issues with SL & online ed, I have to agree with those who have pointed out some of the benefits of virtual worlds for learning and note that completely ignoring these is a bit short-sighted. The SL for Learning question is less a technical one (though, clearly, technical issues are present) and more of an implementation/philosophical one. The "on the Internet no one knows you're a dog" approach in SL does not support the development of the kinds of relationships between and among students and instructors that we know is essential for effective learning, no matter the environment. Trusted identities, safe spaces, ubiquitous access to layers of expertise, multiple ways/opportunities to connect and to communicate -- combined with useful, relevant tasks to complete among a community of learners -- these are the hallmarks of effective online learning, and nearly all of them are missing from SL.
Truthfully, it is the lack of innovative educational approaches within these environments that is the real barrier. Teaching the same way in a new medium and expecting there to be a difference (e.g, lecturing your PPT slides in SL to seated, attentive avatars) does seem pointless. But any insights into higher ed online as a result are equally irrelevant, as they don't tap into the real value of tools like SL in online higher ed -- that is, the ability to change the ways we teach and learn so that the skills, knowledge, and affects developed in higher ed better mirror those necessary to succeed in RL.
My colleagues and I have been teaching graduate students in a 3D virtual world for 5 years now. We now have approximately 1300 citizens in our world. All of our courses, all of our content, and nearly all of our interactions with our students and with each other are embedded within the virtual world. Our world is a modified Activeworlds-based world, rather than SL-based, so that we can address the very issues noted throughout this discussion, namely:
Private world -- no flying male members, griefers, or sex shops;
Low tech footprint -- our world runs well over a modem, on older computers (both PC and Mac), and is accessible via screen readers;
Media that matters -- small-group VoIP chat rooms to support team-based learning; streaming media tutorials; whiteboard and file sharing to support project-based coursework, etc;
Real names -- you are not a dog in our world -- you are you;
Content-rich/Interaction-driven -- Our virtual world is not a game; it is a social environment designed to foster networks of expertise that develop as real people attempt to solve real problems through communication, collaboration, and shared resources;
SL exists to solve a different problem than the one we developed our world to solve (namely, to give our off-campus/online students a better sense of presence and to facilitate the kinds of serendipitous, out-of-class learning experiences that make higher education special). But SL is only peripherally relevant to the broader question of the effectiveness of higher education in 3D virtual worlds. People at Harvard, NC State, Univ of North Texas, and numerous other universities are using these technologies in innovative and effective ways. And, IMHO, SL and AW are simply bridge technologies -- they will not emerge as the platforms for HE in 3D, much like Compuserve and Prodigy did not emerge as the platforms of the Web.
(keep your eye on Croquet (http://www.opencroquet.org)...)
Slashdot Mirror
Truthfully, it is the lack of innovative educational approaches within these environments that is the real barrier. Teaching the same way in a new medium and expecting there to be a difference (e.g, lecturing your PPT slides in SL to seated, attentive avatars) does seem pointless. But any insights into higher ed online as a result are equally irrelevant, as they don't tap into the real value of tools like SL in online higher ed -- that is, the ability to change the ways we teach and learn so that the skills, knowledge, and affects developed in higher ed better mirror those necessary to succeed in RL.
My colleagues and I have been teaching graduate students in a 3D virtual world for 5 years now. We now have approximately 1300 citizens in our world. All of our courses, all of our content, and nearly all of our interactions with our students and with each other are embedded within the virtual world. Our world is a modified Activeworlds-based world, rather than SL-based, so that we can address the very issues noted throughout this discussion, namely:
- Private world -- no flying male members, griefers, or sex shops;
- Low tech footprint -- our world runs well over a modem, on older computers (both PC and Mac), and is accessible via screen readers;
- Media that matters -- small-group VoIP chat rooms to support team-based learning; streaming media tutorials; whiteboard and file sharing to support project-based coursework, etc;
- Real names -- you are not a dog in our world -- you are you;
- Content-rich/Interaction-driven -- Our virtual world is not a game; it is a social environment designed to foster networks of expertise that develop as real people attempt to solve real problems through communication, collaboration, and shared resources;
SL exists to solve a different problem than the one we developed our world to solve (namely, to give our off-campus/online students a better sense of presence and to facilitate the kinds of serendipitous, out-of-class learning experiences that make higher education special). But SL is only peripherally relevant to the broader question of the effectiveness of higher education in 3D virtual worlds. People at Harvard, NC State, Univ of North Texas, and numerous other universities are using these technologies in innovative and effective ways. And, IMHO, SL and AW are simply bridge technologies -- they will not emerge as the platforms for HE in 3D, much like Compuserve and Prodigy did not emerge as the platforms of the Web.(keep your eye on Croquet (http://www.opencroquet.org) ...)
For more info on our world: http://www.lesn.appstate.edu/aetz
- SB