Post on 05-Dec-2014
description
transcript
How to Use
Virtual Worlds in Education
Presentation at: Velon Congres 2011
Location: NH Leeuwenhorst, Noordwijkerhout
Datum: 15-03-2011
A.P.J.Breedveld Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, Zwolle
Dr. W.J.Trooster SURF, Utrecht
The Netherlands
Program
Survey
Use of Virtual Worlds (in Education)
Demonstration
Use of Second Life in Education
Discussion
Definition Virtual World
(3D) persistent and audiovisual (online) environment
Where several users “are” simultaneously
Using a (3D) representation of a character/ avatar
Building this environment to some extentBartle R. (2003) Designing Virtual Worlds,. Thousand Oaks California,
New Riders Publishing
3 Impressions:
What are VirtualWorlds?
Virtual Hospital in Future:
“Public Awareness Health Reform”
Virtual Education Nurses:
“Emergency Room”
AOC Helicon:
“Horse Care”
Context (1)
Features
“Relatedness”(tav mensen)
“Control”(autonomie)
“Competence”(ik kan het)
Intrinsieke motivatie
Leerprestaties
Diepgaand leren
Welzijn/Minder uitval
“Relatedness, Control & Competence” Essential for learning process(Self-determination theory Ryan & Deci (2000))
Kenmerken
Context (2)
Why are Virtual Worlds relevant for Education?
Intrinsic motivation is essential f0r learning
Prerequisite for intrinsic motivation are Relatedness, Control, Competence
Relatedness / Presence is problem in present Electronic Platforms for Collaborative Learning
Virtual Worlds offer Relatedness, Control, Competence
Context (3)
What is known about Virtual Worlds in Education?
Survey of various types of virtual worlds & their present use(Study Jisc, de Freitas (Nov. 2008)
Which ideas, motives and assumptions play a role beforeconsidering (not) to use Second Life in Education(Study Kennisnet, van Schie (Nov. 2008))
Consideration of potential added value of specified learningactivities in SL(Study Kennisnet/SURFnet, van Dulm (Jan. 2009) )
Not yet:“Evidence” for Added Value of SL in Education
(and conditional factors) from Experiencesin Universities & Sec. Vocational Education
Study 1Jisc, Nov’08
5 Types of
VirtualWorlds
Role Play Worlds
Social Worlds
Working Worlds
Training Worlds
Mirror Worlds
Role Play Worlds
World of Warcraft
Social Worlds
SecondLife
Working WorldsProject Wonderland
Training WorldsOlivePlatform
Mirror Worlds
Google Earth
Study 2Kennisnet, Nov. ‘08
Subject
Which ideas,motives,presumptions
play a role
when choosing (not) to use
Second Life?
Study 3Kennisnet/SURFnet, Jan ‘09
Subject
Where in the curriculum
Teachers (MBO/VO, NL)
Think they can use the potential of SL
Review Hew & Cheung (2010)
Hew, K.F. & Cheung, W.S. (2010). Use of three-dimensional (3-D) immersive virtual worldsin K-12 and higher education settings. A review of the research.British
Journal of Educational Technology 41(1), 33–55.
470 papers on the use of Virtual Worlds 455: opinions, conceptual descriptions, non-
emperical descriptions of program implementations, reviews, or not related to Education
15 on single cases (micro level)
Problem
Missing, at this moment:
A survey of - and insight in
best practices/bad practices
on the use of virtual worlds in Education
Risk:
Knowledge in this field is reinvented
(over & again)
Present StudySummer 2009
Objective of present Study
To create new Knowledge :
For Teachers and their Managers
To make Adequate Decisions
To Use (or not to use) Virtual Worlds forEducational Purposes
Topics under Study
What is the (didactic) added value of SL compared to other media?
Which factors (didactic/organisational) determine optimal (sustainable) use of SL
Methods (1)
Selection of 7 learning activities withpotential added value (on the basis of prior studies)
Cooperation & Participation: Co-creation = development & presenting + results
1. Practicing skills (eg in simulations, role play/iexploring identities)
2. Viewing learning content (eg the medium SL, interaction byavatars, simulations/visualisations)
3. Building activities
4. Organizing Events
5. Organizing/building Exhibitions
*SL compared with other media like: RL, Blackboard, MSN, e-mail
Methods (1)
Selection of 7 learning activities withpotential added value (on the basis of prior studies)
Social networking & using “learning-communities”
6. Meeting people as a trigger for learning experiences
(eg: learning a foreign language in SL by meeting native speakers)
7. Coaching students (Intervision, Supervision, Coaching the Course of the Study)
*SL compared with other media like: RL, Blackboard, MSN, e-mail
Methods (2)
Selection of 12 Educational Settings (in most initiatives more than one SL-activity)
University
1. University of Maastricht, NL (Programme for Brand Management)
2. University of Applied Sciences, Zwolle, NL (Social professional Programme for Cultural Community Development)
3. Private Institute (Philosophy Class)
4. Thomas Jefferson University, Philidelphia, USA (Programme forOccupationalTherapy)
5. Metropolitan University of London, UK (Programme for E-learningEducation)
6. University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia ((Under)GraduateProgramme for Religion Education)
7. Technical UniversityTwente, Enschede, NL (Programme forConstruction, Engineering & Management)
Methods (2)
Selection of 11 Educational Settings (in most initiatives more than one SL-activity)
Secondary Vocational Education
9. Davinci College, Dordrecht, NL (IT-Academy)
10. Deltion College, Zwolle, NL (Programme for Interactive Media Design)
11. AOC Helicon, Boxtel, NL (Programme for Equestrian Education)
12. Alfa College, Groningen, NL (Programme for Multimedia Design)
Methods (3)
Questionnaire with items on: Added Value
Didactic factors
Organisational Factors
Use of Questionnaire: In live interview (6x)
In Skype interview (2x)
By e-mail (4x)
Conclusions (1)
All SL-activities showed clear added value in (at least) 1 initiative
Grounds of added value:
SL motivates students intrinsically SL facilitates social interaction Student can direct his/her own learning activities (?Competence?)
Students achieve better learning results:o more profound learning, o more transfer to practice, o more efficiency (less costs), o more pleasure/well-being students
Conclusions (2)
Conclusions (2*)
Features
“Relatedness”(tav mensen)
“Control”(autonomie)
“Competence”(ik kan het)
Intrinsieke motivatie
Leerprestaties
Diepgaand leren
Welzijn/Minder uitval
“Relatedness, Control & Competence” Essential for learning process(Self-determination theory Ryan & Deci (2000))
Kenmerken
Didactische factoren:
Keuze onderwijsactiviteiten in SL (met duidelijke meerwaarde voor (sociale interactie in) SL)
Keuze geschikte doelgroep voor SL
Investering in adequate didactiek die aansluit bij de onderwijsdoelen (met goede opdrachten, begeleiding, toetsing)
Inrichting SL-omgeving aansluitend bij didactisch ontwerp, met periodieke kwaliteitszorg
Hantering gedragsregels.
Conclusions (3a)(Nb: te generaliseren)
Organisatorische factoren: Aansluiting bij het beleid Creatie draagvlak bij management, docenten,en
ICT-ondersteuners Beperking van gevreesde risico’s van gebruik van SL
(o.a. tijdsinvestering) Investering in deskundigheidsbevordering Afspraken over manier van werken bij de SL-
activiteit
Conclusions (3b)
Conclusions (4)2 underlying parameters discriminating for success
1. Choose activities where SL really has strong/ undeniable added value compared to other media(eg the 7 selected activities in this study)
2. Create commitment (for teachers, students and management (eg PR)
a. Make connection to policies
b. Choose subgroups of students apt to working with SL
c. Minimize risks foreseen with the Use of SL
d. Reduce the fear that working with SL is time-consuming
Demo
Discussie
Welke toepassingsmogelijkheden van een virtuele wereld ziet u in de eigen onderwijspraktijk?
Is er meerwaarde voor de virtuele wereld daar?
Zijn deze toepassingen eenvoudig realiseerbaar binnen de virtuele wereld?
Hoe moet didactisch en organisatorisch invulling gegeven worden aan deze toepassingen?