Podagogy

As promised in my previous post, I spent some time digging in the literature about Second Life in education. The result of my digging netted 30+ articles on various aspects of Second Life and “virtual worlds” in relation to teaching and learning. As you know, even moderate explorations of extant literature on a given topic takes a lot of time, but also delivers quite an interesting menu of themes. You can download a formatted bib of the articles used in my lit review here.

The following is a bullet-point summary of some of the key themes I found bubbling to the surface during my lit review. Please Note: Negative themes are tagged with a minus (-, 10), and positive themes are tagged with a plus (+, 5):

• Significant learning curve ( – )
  • Technology issues (especially for many faculty)
  • Complex interface
  • Time consuming (students & faculty)
  • Frustrating experience (students & faculty)

• Security & privacy ( – )
  • “overheard” conversations risk exposure of private information

• Cost for developing your own space ( – )
  • Additional cost if faculty want to develop their own dedicated space

• Potential impact of deviant/antisocial behavior ( – )
  • Little or no control over who tries to interact with you or your students
  • Potential for disruption by “pranksters”

• No content management ( – )

• Building learning objects is difficult ( – )

• Too many distractions ( – )

• Too easy for the emphasis to shift to the medium rather than the message ( – )
• Bandwidth requirements may limit access for some students ( – )

• Graphics performance will vary depending on users technology, and may slow things to a crawl ( – )

• Potential for developing community ( + )
• 3D models can be very useful in some disciplines ( + )
• Potential for collaboration ( + )
• Real-time communication & interaction ( + )
• Available 24/7 ( + )
• Provides a range of affordances for learning interactions

Obviously, 30+ articles is not a comprehensive lit review, and the list of themes above may raise as many questions as they answer. Some faculty are able to make effective use of Second Life, and others are not. This really is not an either/or kind of issue.

Bottom Line: I came away from this review of the literature with a couple of thoughts that stuck with me:

1. I wonder about the value/ROI from developing Second Life resources, versus the value/ROI of using another Web 2.0 application. Maybe I’m being a frump, but I cannot but help raising the issue of “effort vs reward” for the faculty member who tries to raise the bar of technology integration in their courses. I tend to come down on the side of choosing other Web 2.0 apps.
2. Making the technology invisible so the learning becomes the focus. As an instructional designer want-to-be, this is an important goal. The degree to which it is accomplished varies widely among Web 2.0 applications. However, there is no way to make the technology in Second Life fade into the background.
3. Non-traditional learners and computer proficiency. I know I shouldn’t be, but I continue to be amazed at the low level of computer proficiency among non-trad students. Given that these students now make up the majority of students enrolled in American universities, I would rather them master the use of a Wiki, Blog, Social bookmarks, or other Web 2.0 app than struggle with Second Life.

Going forward, I think I will demonstrate Second Life to my adult learners and assess their interest. But I do not plan to integrate Second Life as a project or assignment. That, of course, is just my opinion.

I was pleasantly surprised by a flurry of faculty interest in Second Life earlier this week. Normally, when faculty express interest in integrating technology into teaching and learning, I am thrilled. However, I have to admit, this time I was less excited, and here’s why.

I have been in and out of Second Life (SL) for several years. Each time I engaged SL it was to explore its potential for teaching and learning. Admittedly, there was much in SL which interested me. But, I came away each time feeling that the teaching I experienced in SL was “ho hum”, or worse. Nevertheless, I keep going back thinking that I would discover one more thing that will really make a difference in my opinion of SL as a teaching tool. My latest visit of SL in December 2009 was kind of fun. But, again I walked away scratching my head. This week I started digging on the Web to find experimental research evaluating SL’s effectiveness as a teaching tool. I have not found much useful research as yet, but I am just getting started. I will begin searching scholarly journal databases this week. At this time however, I am claiming my right as a bona fide geezer to take the “Harrumph!” position towards SL.

Can you think of one popular online tool or technology that hasn’t been touted as the newest way to engage students, and improve learning? I think we as educators are just too ready to adopt and promote the latest & greatest technology for teaching and learning without evaluating its true effectiveness. Don’t misunderstand me. I LOVE technology; I make my living with it. I simply feel that teaching using something new (even though SL is no longer “new), is not as important as teaching well.

As I move deeper into my research on SL, here are the thoughts running through my head:

• In a learning context, how do I square what the research suggests about cognitive overlead with a rich, busy, complex environment like SL?
• What topics/subjects/disciplines are most likely to benefit from learning interactions within SL?
• How should teaching in SL differ from a classroom approach?
• Who does SL include/exclude?
• In a learning context, does the use of avatars actually make communication more authentic/personal?

If you know of experimental research on SL, please let me know. I’ll report my findings as I go along.