VIRTUAL WORLDS: 2009 Distance Education Conference

"One of the definitions of sanity is the ability to tell real from unreal. Soon we'll need a new definition." Alvin Toffler

References

Abecedarium: NYC. (2009). Donnell Library. Retrieved October 31, 2009, from http://www.nypl.org/branch/central/dlc/abecedariumnyc/

ACM Siggraph News. (2009). Retrieved October 12, 2009, from http://www.siggraph.org/

Arbelaiz, A.M., & Correa Gorospe, J. M. (2009). Can the grammar of schooling be changed? Computer & Education, 53(1), 51-56. Retrieved October 21, 2009, from Science Direct database.

Atkinson, T., Daugherty, J., & Etelamaki, L. (2008). Virtual worlds come alive at AECT 2008 convention. Tech Trends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 53(1), 29-35. Retrieved October 16, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Bronack, S., Riedl, R., & Tashner, J. (2006). Learning in the zone: A social constructivist framework for distance education in a 3-dimentional virtual world. Interative Learning Environments, 14(3), 219-232. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Burden, D., & Slater, S. (2008). Serious games. ITNow, 9, 6-7. Retrieved October 20, 2009, from Science Direct database.

Chou, S.-W., & Min, H.-T. (2009). The impact of media on collaborative learning in virtual settings: The perspective of social construction. Computer & Education, 52(2), 417-431. Retrieved October 20, 2009, from Science Direct database.

Define: Virtual world. (2007). Retrieved October 10, 2009, from http://worldtheory.blogspot.com/2007/06/define-virtual-world.html

de Freitas, S., & Neumann, T. (2009). The use of ‘exploratory learning’ for supporting immersive learning in virtual environments. Computer & Education, 52(2), 343-352. Retrieved October 20, 2009, from Science Direct database.

Diehl, W. C., & Prins, E. (2008). Unintended outcomes in Second Life: Intercultural literacy and cultural identity in a virtual world. Language & Intercultural Communication, 8(2), 101-118. Retrieved October 10, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Doug Engelbart Institute website. (2008). Retrieved October 19, 2009, from http://www.dougengelbart.org/index.php

Fahey, P. (2008). Characteristics of interactive online learning media. In Anderson, T. (Ed.) (2008). The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed.). (pp. 167-199). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Gaimster, J. (2007). Reflections on interactions in virtual worlds and their implication for learning art and design. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 6(3), 187-199. Retrieved October 14, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Gordon, E. (2007). History of virtual worlds. Avatar Planet. Retrieved October 29, 2009, from http://www.avatarplanet.com/history.php

Internet pioneers: Douglas Engelbart. (n.d.). Retrieved October 12, 2009, from http://www.ibiblio.org/pioneers/englebart.html

Jacobson, A. R., Militello, R., & Baveye, C. (2009). Development of computer-assisted virtual field trips to support multidisciplinary learning. Computers & Education, 52(3), 571-580. Retrieved October 20, 2009, from Science Direct database.

Jones, C. (2009). The economies of virtual worlds: Lessons for the real world. Policy, 25(2), 27-31. Retrieved October 9, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Jones, S. (2006). Reality and virtual reality. Cultural Studies, 20(2/3), 211-226. Retrieved October 14, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Lamb, A., & Johnson, L. (2009). The potential, the pitfalls, and the promise of multiuser virtual environments: Getting a second life. Teacher Librarian, 36(4), 68-72. Retrieved October 14, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Li-Ping Tang, T., & Austin, M. J. (2009). Students’ perceptions of teaching technology, application of technology, and academic performance. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1241-1255. Retrieved October 21, 2009, from Science Direct database.

Manches, A., O’Malley, C., & Benford, S. (2009). The role of physical representation in solving number problems: A comparison of young children’s use of physical and virtual materials. Computer & Education, In Press, Corrected Proof. Retrieved October 20, 2009, from Science Direct database.

McGreal, R., & Elliott, M. (2008). Technologies of online learning (e-learning). In Anderson, T. (Ed.) (2008). The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed.). (pp. 143-165). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Papastergiou, M. (2009). Exploring the potential of computer and video games for health and physical education: A literature review. Computers & Education, 53(3), 603-622. Retrieved October 20, 2009, from Science Direct database.

Paraskeva, F., Mysirlaki, S., & Papagianni, A. (2009). Multiplayer online games as educational tools: Facing new challenges in learning. Computer & Education, In Press. Retrieved October 21, 2009, from Science Direct database.

Peterson, M. (2006). Learner interaction management in an avatar and chat-based virtual world. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 79-103. Retrieved October 10, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

PC Magazine Encyclopedia. (2009). Retrieved October 21, 2009, from http://www.pcmag.com/ encyclopedia_term/o,2543,t=virtual+world&i=59269,00.asp

Sanchez, J (2009, Feb/Mar). A social history of virtual worlds. Library Technology Reports, 45(2), 9-12 . Retrieved September 20, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Takatalo, J., Nyman, G., & Laaksonen, L. (2006). Components of human experience in virtual environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(1), 1-15. Retrieved October 21, 2009, from Science Direct database.

Toth, V. (2005). M.U.D. (multi-user dungeon) website. Retrieved October 29, 2009, from http://www.british-legends.com

Twining, P. (2009). Exploring the educational potential of virtual worlds: Some reflections from the SPP. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), 496-514. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

World theory: Define virtual world. (2007). Retrieved October 17, 2009, from http://worldtheory.blogspot.com/2007/06/define-virtual-world.html

Virtually a world. (2007). Retrieved October 10, 2009, from http://brokentoys.org/2007/06/15/virtually-a-world/

“You Are There.” (n.d.) Internet Movie Database (IMDb). Retrieved October 30, 2009, from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045458/

The Static-Dynamic Continuum

It was interesting reading about static-dynamic technologies and reflecting on where I happen to fall in the continuum. I have never considered myself a techie because I feel so far removed from those that use technology on a daily basis. Oh yes, I use the computer quite often, a cell phone (occasionally), but I never text, blogging is boring, don’t own an iPod, and the thought of Skyping is a drag. However, not until I started with this program at Walden was I forced to participate in other means of technology communication. I was encouraged to use Wiki, open a Skype account, blog, and most recently, create a video presentation, none of which I would have pursued on my own. I am actually glad I don’t have to text anyone although the discussion forums seem very close.

So I am bumping against the static end of the continuum but being pushed and prodded toward the other end. It is not an easy process for me but, thankfully, it’s not too painful a process either. Undoubtedly, since I will be making a social contribution to the field of educational technology eventually, it’s a good thing. My horizons are definitely being broadened as a result of taking this course and I am becoming a bit more focused on the ways that I can help students, who may not be exposed to so many facets of technology, to actually experience the pleasure of it all.



References
Fahy, P. (2008). Characteristics of interactive online learning media. In Anderson, T. (Ed.) (2008). The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed.). (pp. 167-199). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

McGreal, R., & Elliott, M. (2008). Technologies of online learning (e-learning). In Anderson, T. (Ed.) (2008). The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed.). (pp. 143-165). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Engaging Learners with New Strategies and Tools

In the NYC school system it is illegal for students to use cell phones, pdas, or any unapproved devices in the schools. Cell phones have the capability to access information and are, basically, little computers that can be used as learning tools. How trustworthy they are in the hands of pubescent students to be used for educational purposes while in school has yet to be determined.

As the use of technology as a learning tool becomes more accepted in the school system (and that may take decades) the use of technology devices other than computers and whiteboards, some yet to be invented (Dick Tracy’s wristwatch is almost a reality), may find a place. Students are using camcorders, cameras, and other forms of video equipment as learning tools to tell their own stories and to provide a visual record of their experiences. Finding the funding to provide such resources is a challenge.

I believe that a variety of technology learning tools will find their way into the school system to enhance the education of students, but I do not believe that it will be led by school administrations or even the government. They are still laboring under the illusion that if students can test better in reading and math, then all is well in the land of Oz and that the old, comfortable, “tried and true” mode of educating students will work with a tweek here and a twist there. The real, substantive change will come from private sources that realize that we cannot compete unless our students are given the technological tools and the guidance to use them that will make a difference.


References
Anderson, T. (2008). Teaching in an online learning context. In Anderson, T. (Ed.). (2008). The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed.) (pp. 343-365). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Durrington, V. A., Berryhill, A., & Swafford, J. (2006). Strategies for enhancing student interactivity in an online environment. College Teaching, 54(1), 190-193. Retrieved October 25, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Siemens, G. (2007). Curatorial learning. [Podcast]. Learn Online.Retrieved October 25, 2009, from http://learnonline.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/10-minute-lecture-george-siemens-curatorial-teaching/

Presentation Outline

The following outline will be used in developing the video presentation for Educ 8842: Principles of Distance Education, Walden University:

· Description of topic: Virtual Worlds
· History of virtual worlds
· Significance of games vs social virtual worlds
· Potential uses and impact of virtual worlds on education, business, and government
· Role of educators in promoting virtual world technology
· Projected global implications of virtual worlds as technology advances

Assessing Collaborative Efforts

It would seem to be extremely difficult for an instructor to assess the contributions made by individual learners to a collaborative learning community. There are students who have a great facility for writing and can very eloquently and convincingly expound on a topic without saying much. There are students who have phenomenal ideas that should be shared with the community but due to some lack of confidence or even a lack of writing ability are not able to convey those ideas in a manner that allows a significant contribution to be heard. Unless the instructor “knows” the student, and in an online community this may not be the case, the assessment process will not be “fair and equitable.” The use of rubrics is a means of leveling the field, assessing a student’s participation, and assisting in the assessment process, but not substantively if the student’s contributions do not translate into what may subjectively seem adequate as defined by that rubric.

According to Siemens (2008a) a concrete application for measuring participation, such as the wiki system, where the amount of time allocated to online access and number of posts contributed, may be the consummate assessment tool at present. The feedback system, where students respond to posts of fellow students, is a means of assessing contributions, but it is not a tool on which instructors should base a great deal of reliance.

In the world of online courses, students may not like networking or collaborating, goodness knows I don’t, but upon signing up for the program students know that such collaboration is part of the journey. Until some alternative is provided by the university, what students may or may not want is irrelevant. Although the instructor may try to make students more “comfortable” in the collaborative environment, it is not his role to provide those alternatives. The instructor needs to keep open communication with students, building trust and a connectiveness (Siemens, 2008b) that promotes the online community environment, and allow students to develop a sense of cohesiveness within the community. It should not impact the instructor’s assessment plan, whatever that may be.

Siemens (2008b) observed that some very bright students, used to competing and “winning,” are reluctant to participate in the collaborative environment, yet may have the most to contribute. The blogging process as part of the online course allows students to make individual contributions while still being involved in the collaborative process. Cohort members of the community must just continue to give feedback and allow all to feel comfortable in their community.


References
Siemens, G. (2008a). Assessment of collaborative learning. [Vodcast]. Baltimore MD: Laureate Education, Inc. Retrieved October 13, 2009, from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=3649020&Survey=1&47=4839415&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1Siemens, G. (2008b). Learning Communities. [Vodcast]. Baltimore MD: Laureate Education, Inc. Retrieved October 13, 2009, from

Elements of Distance Education Diffusion

Siemens (2008) called the acceptance of distance education by business, academia, and government and their combined “interaction to provide and to equip students for this online environment” the triple-helix model of education. I think that academia was a little slower in acceptance of distance education than either business or government had been. I recall using conference calls in the 70s to train employees who were off-site of the company headquarters, who could not get into the office for whatever reason, and having it considered an alternative to the inconvenience of traveling to the office.

Now, however, distance education seems to be boldly seeping into the academic world, albeit slowly, but will, at some point, be considered the alternative to face-to-face education, without the stigma of being considered “less,” providing less of a quality education, less prestigious on the resume, or less of a benefit to the learner population. Learners will become more comfortable with the online learning environment (Siemens, 2008) and as a result will force acceptance as they request more courses be taken online.

I agree with each of the views Siemens (2008) espoused about global diversity, communication, and collaborative interaction. In focusing on one of these elements, at present, communications is increasing to the point where it may be interfering with everyday life. There are so many opportunities for individuals to communicate with each other -- texting, skyping, twittering, blogging, emailing, faxing -- that it seems almost strange to communicate solely by making phone calls. For someone to claim that they could not get in touch with someone else, with the myriad of options available, seems an impossibilty. And this is only the tip of the iceberg of communications. Someone out there is conceiving of another form of communications that will be achieved and we will wonder what life was like before it existed.

Reference
Siemens, G. (2008). The future of distance education. [Vodcast]. Baltimore MD: Laureate Education, Inc.

The Next Generation

Moller, Huett, Foshay, and Coleman (2008) and Simonson (2008) agreed that distance education and traditional or face-to-face education, although different, must produce the same outcome for participating students. To accomplish that end, both educational methods must attain what Simonson coined as “equivalency.” Simonson defined his Equivalency Theory, developed over a decade ago at Iowa State University, as the ability for students to learn just as well, whether as distance learners or as classroom learners, but that the process should not be the same. He used the analogy of the obvious difference between a circle and a square. Yet geometrically, if they have the same area, equivalency exists between them.

In discussing online instruction with colleagues, it became evident that many believe that with little difference in student learning, lesson plans used in the traditional classroom would work just as well in a distance learning environment. In other words, the process would work the same for both venues. They rarely consider the possibility that distance learning students do not have an instructor guiding them, motivating them, or giving them verbal or nonverbal signals to indicate how well they are accomplishing their tasks. There are a myriad of distractions that pull the attention of distance learners away from the monitor and often interfere with that learning process.

Moller, et.al. (2008) agree that there needs to be a “reexamination of the process of learning” in the distance learning arena. They see future generations of learners as being a community of learners, sharing ideas, communicating as learners, and building a strong cooperative environment. As a result of shared concerns, learning will become customized to learners and not viewed as a catch-all that may or may not meet the needs of everyone.

As the community grows, learners accepting distance learning formats will increase exponentially. Simonson (2009) does not believe this will happen in a revolutionary way. Major change does take time and change in education seems to take even longer. But Simonson believes that there will be a blending of distance learning and traditional learning as distance learning becomes a part of that community of learners.


References
Huett, J., Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Coleman, C. (2008, September/October). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web (Part 3: K12). TechTrends, 52(5). 63-67.
Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008, May/June). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web (Part 1: Training and development). TechTrends, 52(3), 70-75.
Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008, May/June). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web (Part 2: Higher education). TechTrends, 52(4), 66-70.
Simonson, M. (2000). Making decisions: The use of electronic technology in online classes. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 84, 29-34.
Simonson, M. (2009). Distance education: The next generation. [Vodcast]. Baltimore MD: Laureate Education, Inc.
Simonson, M. (2009). Equivalency theory. [Vodcast]. Baltimore MD: Laureate Education, Inc.