This will not be an article. It is more like a blog entry. The reason, why I choose to write a blog lies in the problem that I don't get it. I just don’t get the phenomenon of Second Life (SL), but as SL has many users, then I admit that there must be something catching/intresting about it. I wondered for a some time already about the phenomena of SL. So instead of writing something smart in an article, I choose to write a blog to reflect my thoughts and feelings. Another reason might be that I looked for research about the SL but it was hard to find a concrete study what would be longer then 2 pages. As the SL was created in 2003, this is understandable.
As many researches (Childress, Braswell 2006; Yee, Bailenson, Urbanek, Chang, Merget 2007) have pointed out, the SL is a massive multiplayer online role-playing game. But for me it is hard to consider the SL just as a game. Huizinga (2003) has argued that game is different from a real life because game takes place, game has an end. In that sense the SL is like a real life - it is a virtual reality, it has no ending. Hence not a game?
We may ask: is the SL just a hype? It has around nine millions avatars (Bugeja 2007), but relatively few of them actually use it (Newitz 2007). In online communities one of the key questions is usability of community. How software is designed and developed has an impact to online community: the way people are communicating strongly affects its evolution. (Lazar, Preece 2003). There might be the reason of low usability in the SL - from my personal experience it was quite hard to figure out the basics.
When Linden Lab published the SL, it “gained a reputation as being little more than a hippy hang-out, where people had cyber sex, took virtual drugs “. During time it has become a virtual space that enhanced different forms of social interaction (Ananthaswamy 2007).
What still remains unclear to me is that this it not a game - people are putting real (!) money to the SL to gain pleasure and satisfaction. The question is: why are the not using the same money in the real world and instead of real pleasure they prefer virtual one? Or doesn’t it matter whether where do you get the satisfaction because the feeling (chemical reaction?) is still the same? But why do people pay real money to buy a virtual (!) dog? Why do they not buy themselves a real dog? They want pleasure, but they don’t want responsibility? Real dog brings along a lot of obligations: you can not afford forget to feed him, to go outside to a walk? These kinds of obligations are obviously forgotten in the SL.
But the SL proves that human nature is social. Even if these people choose virtual reality (VR) instead of staying in the real life (IR), they are choosing sociality. Otherwise they would be alone in a different place and not looking around in the world full of other people. People game (we can consider the SL here as a game) due different reasons: some get excitement out of it, some get the feeling of being successful, some find it educational (Goldstein 2003). All those reasons might be true for the SL also. I can accept that in some since the SL is interesting like a game: it is a simulation of a situation or life. You even have proper game tools: a toy (avatar) and playground (world). At the same time it is proven that social interactions in online virtual environment (SL) have the same social norms as social interaction in the physical world (Yee, Bailenson, Urbanek, Chang, Merget 2007). So the question remains: why do these people decide living in the VR instead of IR? Isn’t real life interesting enough? Why are they not social IR, why do they not dare to live a there own real life?
It is easy to leave the SL and not to think about it anymore as I don’t understand it, but I do realise the educational potential of the SL, what is still fully undiscovered. It might be a simple place where you can learn and communicate with different people (professionals), you can easily create something new or have a different profession (and no harm done IR). Virtual reality can be a medium to learn by doing.
Using VR in learning can be very helpful: it helps learners to reflect and get more deepen understanding of the learning process trough high-level interaction and active engagement by learners (Mantovani 2001). Improvements of environments (like SL) will lead to increased interactivity, the line between face-to-face learning and the online virtual learning will be not so clear. Improvements of virtual learning environments will create new ways of learning and models of teaching. It will depend on development of technology and on creativity of the educators who are using these kinds of environments (Childress, Braswell 2006).
And I have to say: this the SL enables.
References:
1. Ananthaswamy, A. (2007), „A life less ordinary offers far more than just escapism”, New Scientist 195 (2620), 57-57, http://search.epnet.com, [accessed 28 Oct 2007].
2. Bugeja, M. J. (2007), “Second Thoughts About Second Life”, Chronicle of Higher Education 54 (3), C2-C4, http://search.epnet.com, [accessed 28 Oct 2007].
3. Childress, M., D., Braswell, R. (2006), “Using Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games for Online Learning”, Distance Education 27 (2), 187-196, http://search.epnet.com, [accessed 28 Oct 2007].
4. Goldstein, G. (2003), "People @ Play: Electronic Games", in van Oostendorp, H. (ed), Cognition in a Digital World, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., pp. 25 - 46.
5. Huizinga, J. (2003), Mängiv inimene, Tallinn: Kirjastus Varrak.
6. Lazar, Preece (2003), “Social Considerations in Online Communities: Usability, Sociability, and Success Factors”, in van Oostendorp, H. (ed), Cognition in a Digital World, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., pp 127-151.
7. Mantovani, F. (2001), “VR Learning: Potential and Challenges for the Use of 3D Environments in Education and Training”, in Riva, G. & Galimberti, C. (eds), Towards CyberPsychology: Mind, Cognition and Society in the Internet Age, Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp 207–225.
8. Newitz, A. (2007), “Virtual worlds are becoming more like the real world”, New Scientist 195 (2618), 40-40, http: search.epnet.com, [accessed 28 Oct 2007].
9. Yee, N., Bailenson, J. N., Urbanek, M., Chang, F., Merget, D. (2007), “The Unbearable Likeness of Being Digital: The Persistence of Nonverbal Social Norms in Online Virtual Environments”, CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10 (1), 115-121, http://search.epnet.com, [accessed 28 Oct 2007].
Monday, October 29, 2007
Technology and new education
Ken Robinson (an expert on creativity) argues in one of his presentations, that we do have the same kind of educational system for a long time now: mathematics is still at the top of the curriculum and arts down of the list. He poses a question: whether the structure and goals of today's education meet new requirements of society 50 years in the future? His answer is no as for the future we have to support more creativity.
Quite the same is said in the Report of National Centre of Education and the Economy in 2006 where skills of future are listed as: collaboration, communication, creativity, innovation, information literacy, critical thinking, problem solving and global awareness (Rosenfeld 2007). Erica de Vries argues also, that people need in the future to have competence in defining problems, finding information and collaboration (de Vries 2003). The nature of work is changing: there are more people who are working in the knowledge-based professions. Knowledge-based professions have a continuous need for updating their competence (Severinson Eklundh, Groth, Hedman, Lantz, Rodriguez, Sallnäs 2003). These people are dealing with different mental problems every day. Based on this, we can say: problem solving will be the key issue in future, but successful problem solving can be based only on creativity. So how can we support creativity instead of killing it?
As more and more people who are part of educational system are representers of knowledge-based professions, it means that lifelong education and the availability of different educational possibilities are growingly important questions. Here e-learning can definitely help by offering different tools to learn in formal as well in informal education. But the question is: will e-learning meet the requirements of tomorrow? Will there be education 2.0 or are we just using new tools of technology to fulfil old goals of education?
There is already discussion about education 2.0 but it remains quite technological. When web changed to web 2.0 it brought along the change of goals and the essence of web. Instead of being just arbitrator of information (offering/receiving) web 2.0 is about creation of new information and knowledge. In web the user was passive and just gained information, in web 2.0 the user is active (!) and takes part of knowledge creation. This is qualitative change and it has changed the goals and structure of web. So there must be a qualitative change in education before it is legitimate to use the term education 2.0. Todays discussions about education 2.0 are supporting the same essence of education as it is today.
So we don’t have yet deep discussion about education 2.0, but still: can e-learning somehow support creativity? Roschelle and Pea in 1999 have pointed out, that today's web-based communication is pretty much text-based. This leaves knowledge creation to background and supports just passive reading (Järvelä, Häkkinen 2003). So many opportunities stay unused. More active creation of videos, live-conferences, live-interaction, online communities and (why not) different simulations would help us solve that problem and fortunately we can see it already happening. But as the design of virtual environments is political (Gillespie 2003), it must be possible to create a learning environment to support creativity. Let us take for example virtual environment Second Life (SL) what has being used as a learning tool . Terry Beaubois created a virtual classroom on architecture . Since almost everything is possible in SL, it gives to the student's possibility to try out different architectural design. Students can try things what they would never try in a normal classroom: it is possible by either denying the laws of nature (gravitation) or it's just not too expensive. This all enables students to "think out of the box" and foster their creativity.
Of course there rises a question: how can we create a bridge between this kind of learning and real life and real situations. It is very important if we can transfer our knowledge to the real world. The second part of this kind on learning is: does it make students more reflect their knowledge? By visualisation of their knowledge, it brings out tacit knowledge. Students are more conscious about it and it might be a ground to the creation of new knowledge. It might be even great that you have to visualises everything (even by writing) because if helps to reflect. So this is real win-win situation: tacit knowledge will become visible and conscious and knowledge will be available to others and used a ground for creation something new. The key question is how to do it so that people will want to make it visible.
Second Life is a multiplayer role play game (Doherty, Murphy 2007). As future games will be more complex and realistic and players will have more control over them (story, structure) (Goldstein 2003), this means that using different games in learning will add more fun and creativity to the process. And having fun in learning usually guarantees a good learning outcome. But using different games is hole different approach to the education then usual classroom study.
There is one more problem in the field of new education. Differences between the generations are growing larger and larger and not only from an attitude side. Young people of tomorrow will still have another attitude toward life, but they will have a different skill profile and different thinking structure. As technology is more widely available, more people are using it. Because of use of technology there skill and thinking profile is different and this is causing a conflict between the generations. So can we predict at all the need of future and the essence of new education? If we can, then it's clear that new education requires radical change in the ways in which learning is organised and executed. E-learning may develop the skills and creativity; it may be the great enabler (Thompson, Randall 2001). It all depends whether we can realised that.
References:
1. Doherty, P., Murphy, P. (2007) "Science visit the metaverse and change your mind", Fantasy & Science Fiction 113 (3), 127-134.
2. Ecklundh, K. S., Groth, K., Hedman, A., Lantz, A., Rodriguez, H., Sallnäs, E-L. (2003), " The World Wide Web as a Social Infrastructure for Knowledge-Oriented Work", in van Oostendorp, H. (ed), Cognition in a Digital World, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., pp. 97 - 126.
3. Gillespie, T. (2003), "The stories digital tools tell", in Everett, A. & Caldwell, J. T. (eds), New media: theories and practices of digitextuality, New York: Routledge, pp. 107-126.
4. Goldstein, G. (2003), "People @ Play: Electronic Games", in van Oostendorp, H. (ed), Cognition in a Digital World, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., pp. 25 - 46.
5. Järvela, S., Häkkinen, P. (2003), "The Levels of Web-Based Discussions: Using Perspective-Taking Theory as an Analytical Tool", in van Oostendorp, H. (ed), Cognition in a Digital World, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., pp. 77 - 96.
6. Rosenfeld, E. (2007), "Beginning the conversation about education 2.0", Teacher Librarian 34 (4), 6-6, http://search.epnet.com/, [accessed 2 Oct 2007].
7. Thompson, P., Randall, B. (2001), "Can e-learning spur Creativity, Innovation and Entrepreneurship?", Educational Media International 38(4), 289-292.
8. de Vries, E. (2003), "Educational Technology and Multimedia From a Cognitive Perspective: Knowledge From Inside the Computer, Onto the Screen, and Into Our Heads?", in van Oostendorp, H. (ed), Cognition in a Digital World, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., pp. 155 - 174.
Quite the same is said in the Report of National Centre of Education and the Economy in 2006 where skills of future are listed as: collaboration, communication, creativity, innovation, information literacy, critical thinking, problem solving and global awareness (Rosenfeld 2007). Erica de Vries argues also, that people need in the future to have competence in defining problems, finding information and collaboration (de Vries 2003). The nature of work is changing: there are more people who are working in the knowledge-based professions. Knowledge-based professions have a continuous need for updating their competence (Severinson Eklundh, Groth, Hedman, Lantz, Rodriguez, Sallnäs 2003). These people are dealing with different mental problems every day. Based on this, we can say: problem solving will be the key issue in future, but successful problem solving can be based only on creativity. So how can we support creativity instead of killing it?
As more and more people who are part of educational system are representers of knowledge-based professions, it means that lifelong education and the availability of different educational possibilities are growingly important questions. Here e-learning can definitely help by offering different tools to learn in formal as well in informal education. But the question is: will e-learning meet the requirements of tomorrow? Will there be education 2.0 or are we just using new tools of technology to fulfil old goals of education?
There is already discussion about education 2.0 but it remains quite technological. When web changed to web 2.0 it brought along the change of goals and the essence of web. Instead of being just arbitrator of information (offering/receiving) web 2.0 is about creation of new information and knowledge. In web the user was passive and just gained information, in web 2.0 the user is active (!) and takes part of knowledge creation. This is qualitative change and it has changed the goals and structure of web. So there must be a qualitative change in education before it is legitimate to use the term education 2.0. Todays discussions about education 2.0 are supporting the same essence of education as it is today.
So we don’t have yet deep discussion about education 2.0, but still: can e-learning somehow support creativity? Roschelle and Pea in 1999 have pointed out, that today's web-based communication is pretty much text-based. This leaves knowledge creation to background and supports just passive reading (Järvelä, Häkkinen 2003). So many opportunities stay unused. More active creation of videos, live-conferences, live-interaction, online communities and (why not) different simulations would help us solve that problem and fortunately we can see it already happening. But as the design of virtual environments is political (Gillespie 2003), it must be possible to create a learning environment to support creativity. Let us take for example virtual environment Second Life (SL) what has being used as a learning tool . Terry Beaubois created a virtual classroom on architecture . Since almost everything is possible in SL, it gives to the student's possibility to try out different architectural design. Students can try things what they would never try in a normal classroom: it is possible by either denying the laws of nature (gravitation) or it's just not too expensive. This all enables students to "think out of the box" and foster their creativity.
Of course there rises a question: how can we create a bridge between this kind of learning and real life and real situations. It is very important if we can transfer our knowledge to the real world. The second part of this kind on learning is: does it make students more reflect their knowledge? By visualisation of their knowledge, it brings out tacit knowledge. Students are more conscious about it and it might be a ground to the creation of new knowledge. It might be even great that you have to visualises everything (even by writing) because if helps to reflect. So this is real win-win situation: tacit knowledge will become visible and conscious and knowledge will be available to others and used a ground for creation something new. The key question is how to do it so that people will want to make it visible.
Second Life is a multiplayer role play game (Doherty, Murphy 2007). As future games will be more complex and realistic and players will have more control over them (story, structure) (Goldstein 2003), this means that using different games in learning will add more fun and creativity to the process. And having fun in learning usually guarantees a good learning outcome. But using different games is hole different approach to the education then usual classroom study.
There is one more problem in the field of new education. Differences between the generations are growing larger and larger and not only from an attitude side. Young people of tomorrow will still have another attitude toward life, but they will have a different skill profile and different thinking structure. As technology is more widely available, more people are using it. Because of use of technology there skill and thinking profile is different and this is causing a conflict between the generations. So can we predict at all the need of future and the essence of new education? If we can, then it's clear that new education requires radical change in the ways in which learning is organised and executed. E-learning may develop the skills and creativity; it may be the great enabler (Thompson, Randall 2001). It all depends whether we can realised that.
References:
1. Doherty, P., Murphy, P. (2007) "Science visit the metaverse and change your mind", Fantasy & Science Fiction 113 (3), 127-134.
2. Ecklundh, K. S., Groth, K., Hedman, A., Lantz, A., Rodriguez, H., Sallnäs, E-L. (2003), " The World Wide Web as a Social Infrastructure for Knowledge-Oriented Work", in van Oostendorp, H. (ed), Cognition in a Digital World, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., pp. 97 - 126.
3. Gillespie, T. (2003), "The stories digital tools tell", in Everett, A. & Caldwell, J. T. (eds), New media: theories and practices of digitextuality, New York: Routledge, pp. 107-126.
4. Goldstein, G. (2003), "People @ Play: Electronic Games", in van Oostendorp, H. (ed), Cognition in a Digital World, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., pp. 25 - 46.
5. Järvela, S., Häkkinen, P. (2003), "The Levels of Web-Based Discussions: Using Perspective-Taking Theory as an Analytical Tool", in van Oostendorp, H. (ed), Cognition in a Digital World, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., pp. 77 - 96.
6. Rosenfeld, E. (2007), "Beginning the conversation about education 2.0", Teacher Librarian 34 (4), 6-6, http://search.epnet.com/, [accessed 2 Oct 2007].
7. Thompson, P., Randall, B. (2001), "Can e-learning spur Creativity, Innovation and Entrepreneurship?", Educational Media International 38(4), 289-292.
8. de Vries, E. (2003), "Educational Technology and Multimedia From a Cognitive Perspective: Knowledge From Inside the Computer, Onto the Screen, and Into Our Heads?", in van Oostendorp, H. (ed), Cognition in a Digital World, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., pp. 155 - 174.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)