Second Life and its Educational Applications

Final short assignment for a fascinating course. Enjoy. I'd love some feedback.

ED 6610
Assignment #4

Donna Millard
200788438

Second Life and its Educational Application

Second Life has been touted as the second coming for educational and learning design. It is claimed that it will solve all of our problems with offering valid learning experiences in an online environment. However, is this valid or not? What is the proof that it does succeed? Let’s take a look at this new exciting tool.

Second Life has been described as a virtual world that emulates as close as possible the real world or as being completely different to the real world as possible. While games are played in Second Life, the product itself is not strictly a game. “Second Life is often described as a 3-D version of the Web because it adds a rich visual aspect Internet activities such as socializing, fact finding, and doing business.” (Oishi, 2007) As one of the social software tools being offered in the Web 2.0 package, Second Life is unique in that it offers communication, collaboration, and creativity. It offers all this in a uniquely virtual, “live” world offered by the Linden Labs, a San Francisco based company. (Atkinson, 16) Specific to the educational field, Second Life offers a program called Campus: Second Life which allows post-secondary level instructors a chance to see how they can incorporate this new tool in their courses. (Childress, 2006) As Second Life is a virtual world tool, it’s best to take a look at it. Ohio State University offers a short YouTube video on their Second Life campus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFuNFRie8wA).

Before jumping on the Second Life band wagon, a close look at what is needed in an online learning tool and the various theories linked to these tools need to be investigated. There has been a definite shift in learning and education since the development of both the Internet and social software tools. The shift is from a passive receiving style of learning to a much more active participation in educational pursuits. (Forman, 76) Linked with this shift is the change in pedagogical practices and theories. Online tools allowed for this more active learning but a change was also needed to link the educational purpose to the technology. Without this connection, the activities by themselves would not be supported in the long term. E-learning was therefore created to link the practice to the theory. (Bang, 2006; Kesim, 2007de Freitas, 2008)) To make the most of these new online tools and link it to current educational theories, three aspects of active participation were deemed essential. The tool must be interactive, collaborative and creative. It must also appeal to all of the senses used in learning—touch, sound, visual. Students learn and capture information at many different levels in the digital age. (Metros, 2008) Linked specifically to the social constructivist theory in education, social software tools like Second Life allow for the student to build on their current knowledge, and with the acquisition of new knowledge found through the tool, develop even more knowledge. (Dalsgaard, 2006) They are literally constructing new knowledge in a social process by interacting with others. Merriam explains: “All forms of constructivism understand learning to be an active rather than a passive endeavor. Consequently, learning occurs through dialogue, collaborative learning, and cooperative learning.” (Merriam, 292)

Does Second Life support the criteria set out with the constructivist theory? Does it provide what is needed for a true learning experience? How does Second Life support interactivity, collaboration and creativity? Second Life, just by being a virtual world, supports interactivity in a whole new level. By recreating yourself in the form of an avatar (a virtual representation of yourself), you travel through the Second Life worlds, communicating directly with individuals both in real time as well as through emails if the individual is not logged on. Not only is the communication in typed messages, Linden Labs introduced in May 2007, a voice interface. (http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Voice) So avatars can now talk to one another. Interactivity is definitely a positive feature of Second Life. Along with interactivity is collaboration. Is this feasible in Second Life? Because avatars can literally work on projects together, if given appropriate access, the ability to collaborate is as available as it is in a classroom if not more so. Group work in Second Life would allow any student the ability to participate regardless of their location or even their personality style. Many shyer students would participate if they don their Second Life persona. They would probably not do so in a real life classroom setting. The further ability of Second Life to replicate real or imaginary worlds allows this collaboration/participation to actually present real life situations in a safe environment such as operating room simulations or laboratory experiments. (Dev, 2007) Lastly the aspect of creativity in Second Life needs to be supported. Since this is a totally virtual world, creativity is literally only confined by the individual’s imagination and their computer skills. Entire museums and works of art have been created in Second Life—both replications of old Masters and brand new pieces have art have been created in this virtual world. Clothing designers, architects and musicians have all created unique items in the Second Life world. Being creative in this venue is definitely available. Hargis notes the following examples:

➢ “New York University students take a ride on a magic carpet as they build the polygon rendition of the Washington Square arch.
➢ Pepperdine University graduate students convene on sandy Malibu Island, sometimes in a tree house, or in a coffee shop. “ (Hargis, 2008)

So with all of the positive features of Second Life, why isn’t every educational institution jumping on board? Are there problems with this new social software tool? As with any new technology, the learning curve is quite significant in Second Life. Not only do you create your own character, the orientation in Second Life teaches you to walk, talk and fly. All of this takes significant time investment to learn. Time is often something an instructor doesn’t have a lot of. Academic administration must invest in instructor time to learn the new technology. This in turn translates in money; something very few institutions have in abundance. (Hannah, 1998) Lastly, the student needs to learn this new tool. This is potentially difficult especially for adult students—the majority of students enrolled in distance education programs. (Kim, 2008) However, students and instructors can and have learned how to use this new online tool. Given the right support and time to learn and develop, Second Life could truly be the second coming of learning online.




Sources:

Atkinson, T. (2008). Second Life for educators: inside Linden Lab. TechTrends, 52(3), 16-18.

Bang, J. & C. Dalsgaard. (2006). Rethinking e-learning: shifting the focus to learning activities. In E.K. Sorensen & D. Murchu, eds. Enhancing Learning Through Technology. 184-202. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc.

Childress, M.D. & R. Braswell. (2006). Using massively multiplayer online role-playing games for online learning, Distance Education, 27(2), 187-196. DOI: 10.1080/01587910600789522

Dalsgaard, C. (2006). Social software: e-learning beyond learning management systems. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. http://www.erodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Christian_Daslgaard.htm

De Freitas, S. & M Griffiths. (2008). The convergence of gaming practices with other media forms: what potential for learning? A review of the literature. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(1), 11-20. DOI: 10.1080/17439880701868796

Dev, P., P. Youngblood,&W. Heinrichs & L. Kusumoto. (2007). Virtual worlds and team training, Anesthesiology Clinics, 25(2), 321-336. DOI: 10.1016/j.anclin.2007.03.001

Forman, D., L. Nyatanga & T. Rich. (2002). E-learning and educational diversity, Nurse Education Today, 22, 76-82. DOI: 10.1054/nedt.2001.0740

Hannah, R. (1998). Merging the intellectual and technical infrastructures in higher education: the Internet example. The Internet and Higher Education, 1(1), 7-20.
doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(99)80180-8

Hargis, J. (2008). A Second Life for distance learning. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 9(2).

Kesim, E. & E. Agaoglu. (2007). A paradigm shift in distance education: Web 2.0 and social software. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 3(3), 66-75.

Kim, Y. (2008). Reviewing and critiquing computer learning and usage among older adults. Educational Gerontology, 34(8), 709-735. DOI: 10.1080/03601270802000576

Linden Research, Inc. (8 August 2008). Second Life Wiki: Voice. Retrieved November 20, 2008 from http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Voice

Merriam, S.B., R. Caffarella & L. Baumgartner. (2007). Learning in Adulthood: A Comprehensive Guide. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

Metros, S.E. (2008). The educator’s role in preparing visually literate learners. Theory into Practice, 47, 102-109. DOI: 10.1080/00405840801992264

Ohio State University Second Life Campus. (15 February 2007). Retrieved November 20, 2008 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFuNFRie8wA

Oishi, L. (2007). Surfing second life: what does Second Life have to do with real-life learning? Technology & Learning, 54(1). http://find.galegroup.com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/itx/start.do?prodId=ITOF