Virtual worlds

Virtual worlds

Virtual worlds offer exciting possibilities in an educative environment that I argue are transformative in the way teachers think about teaching and how students become more actively engaged in the learning process. Dickey (2011) noted that the epistemological shift toward constructivist learning and technological advances have had great impact on instructional design. Dickey (2011) noted – correctly in my opinion – that effective learning occurs in multi-modal environments where the learner is actively engaged. SecondLife (SL) is the world’s largest online virtual world. It was originally designed as a social networking “world” but educators have come to realize its potential as an effective, immersive learning environment. For Dickey (2011) SL and other virtual worlds offer new and exciting possibilities to occur within the constructivist learning paradigm.

Although virtual worlds have been around for almost ten years, there is still only a modest amount of research that has been done. But SL for instance has shown to be an effective vehicle for enabling collaboration and communication with regard to storytelling among 9-11 year olds (Dickey 2011).

Furthermore as Dickey (2011) noted, teachers participating in studies where they were learning to use SL found that the ability for customiztion of SL was exciting. However, these teachers also raised concerns about the possibility of their students encountering objectionable material. However, I would inform my reader that SL is customizable to the point that teachers can create simulations and conditions in which it is impossible for students to encounter adult oriented areas as well as preventing incursions by – how else can I put this – virtual hookers into their constructed learning environments. It is beyond the scope of this summary to go into any detail about how this is accomplished but I do think it is important to note that in the case of large virtual worlds such as SL, it is important for teachers to control the technology  rather than allowing technology to dictate the curriculum and the way in which it is conducted.

Dickey (2011) also noted that some of the teachers surveyed stated that their schools may not be receptive to SL because the schools censor students’ online activities. One teacher noted that YouTube for instance is off-limits in the school system in all cases. In essence, the Dickey article really raises two interesting questions at least in my estimation. First, it seems that schools who do engage in heavy censorship of online activities need to reasses their censorship policies concerning online activities and weigh the risks against the benefits. I would opine that while there certainly is a need for controlling online activities vis a vis age appropriate activities, schools with a stringent censorship policy, or, more precisely, those with blanket censorship policies are in my opinion hindering teachers’ and students’ opportunities to utilize a technology that is collaborative and multi-modal in approach. Second, and perhaps related at least indirectly to the first point is the question of the teacher’s own ability to remain vigilant to ensure that her students remain focused (Dickey 2011). Teachers liked the idea that avatars are wildly customizable – and indeed they are – and they found that they had spent a lot more time focusing on the look of their avatars than they did in exploring learning possibilities in SL. One teacher expressed that while such customizablity was fun, she wasn’t certain it was terribly educational (Dickey 2011).

I feel however again – if I am permitted to editorialize – that in a very real sense – the transformative nature of virtual worlds informs – or rather misinforms – users new to these technologies. As Dickey (2011) noted, only modest research in the area of virtual worlds had been done, I would argue that this very same lack of research is a contributing factor to teachers’ trepidation about virtual world technology as a vehicle for constructivist learning.

The extant research, again albeit modest – has shown much promise. In a study by Xu, Park, and Baek (2011), the argument was made that digital storytelling addresses four essential student-centered learning activities in SL, namely: student engagement, reflection for deep learning, technology integration, and project-based learning. Students created stories using the multi-modal capabilities of SL. But according to Xu, Park, and Baek (2011), SL allows for the stories become virtual artifacts – read “real” – that give textures to the objects that represent the story. Xu, Park (2011), and Baek argued that virtual worlds offer the opportunity for creating learning environments as close to the real world as possible. In addition, students creating and interacting with the environment have a stong sense of “being there: as Xu, Park, and Baek noted.

My reader will have already noted that technology integration was listed as a component of student centered learning. For Xu, Park, and Baek (2011), such integration affords a more efficient, satisfying, and productive learning environment. Accordingly, technological integration really speaks to a mulyi-pronged approach to learning in that activities are designed to “intentionally ans actively help learners to construct their own meanings from thinking about experiences. It is my contention that since the constructivist theory of learning stresses the importance of experience, it stands to reason that the use of virtual worlds in constructing these experiences such that stories are created from them then the use of virtual world technology should be considered a pivotal tool for actively engaing constructivist learning.

I thought it wise to conclude this survey of articles with a discussion of how virtual worlds are being applied in a more focused area of study. Juaregi, Canto, de Graaff, Koenraad, and Moonen (2011) discussed the possibilities afforded by virtual worlds in the area of verbal interaction and second language learning and cross cultural exposure and immersion. The study focused on cultural similarities and differences in a simulated trip created in SL. These Dutch students explored Hispanic areas in SL. Jauregi, et al, (2011) noted that to avoid any uncomfortable situations, the Dutch students were paired with Spanish pre-service teachers. The Dutch students visited virtual Barcelona, Jalisco, and Al-Aldalus. The students were tasked with communicating with the Hispanic residents of these areas and talk about their experiences in SL. I should note here that among the plethora of tools available in Sl is the ability to use real time voice chat. Further tasks allowed for different pairings and encouraged the students to talk about cultural expectations and experiences.

Jauregi, et al,  noted that the benefits included a safe learning environment as well as observing that communication was much richer in two of the four appointed tasks that it would have been in a classroom or video-web communication vehicle such as Skype. Jauregi et al noted that foreign language instruction necessitates effective intercultural comepretence while respecting learner’s specific needs. The pre-service teachers reported that their own experience in SL was according to Jauregi, et al, (2011) as an eye opener in that situations similar to the real world could be practiced rather than written down or merely imagined.

Obviously, the scope of this assignment has restricted me to an in-depth of discussion of the efficacy of virtual worlds. Nonetheless I am a firm believer that virtual worlds afford an exciting educative environment that invokes the best of constructivist learning theories as well as Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences as discussed in my previous blog entry.

REFERENCES

Dickey, M. The pragmatics of virtual worlds for K-12 educators: Investigating the

         affordances and constraints of Active Worlds and Second Life with K-12 in-service

         teachers. Education Tech Research Dev. (2011) 59:1-20.

Jauregi, K., Canto, S., de Graaff, R., Koenraad, T., Moonene, M. Verbal interaction in Second

Life: Towards a pedagogic framework for task design. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 24: 1, February 2001. 77-101.

Xu, Y., Park, H., Baek, Y. A new approach toward digital storytelling: An activity focused on

            writing self-efficacy in a virtual learning environment. Educatiional Technology &

            Society. 14 (4), 181-191.

            

Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences

Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences has appealed to me ever since I encountered his theory in Dr. William Gray's Ed. Psych course. In essence, Gardner theorizes that we each possess different intelligences in varying degrees and that each of us learn more efficiently with respect to those intelligences. But Gardner's theory has also proven to be transformative in the way that we now think of intelligence. We are of course aware of standardized I.Q. tests. These had their origins in France (Binet) and are better known as the Stanford-Binet. The earliest tests were problematic in that they favored upper class whites and as such, because of ethnic bias, were not a fair measure of intelligence. In fact, these same tests were contributing factors in the United States in determining that immigrants were ineducable! When the tests were given in the speaker's native language, the results were more accurate in terms of determining intelligence. But, I.Q. tests possess inherent problems - chief among them being that the only intelligence that can be measured is that which is quantifiable. Looking at Bloom's taxonomy for instance, one readily recognizes that knowledge and comprehension can be easily measured. Later along the continuum when attempting to measure higher order learning such as synthesis and evaluation the measurement becomes problematic. However, the real question when we speak about intelligence with respect to Gardner is that intelligence manifests itself in different ways. What had been commonly referred to as "talent" is seen as intelligence according to Gardner.
To continue with the I.Q. test example we may ask a simple question to see if there is any truth in Gardner's theory. However, the question must be asked within the paradigm that there is only one type of intelligence: that which is quantifiable. So for instance, how does one measure the intelligence of two different writers or painters or composers? If the old quantifiable theory of intelligence prevails then the astute reader will quickly come to the conclusion that the above question is unanswerable and even if an answer could be provided, that answer would have to be based upon the assessor's own sense of aesthetics.
Gardner postulates seven differing intelligences: linguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, spatial, body-kinesthetic, intrapersonal (e.g., insight, metacognition) and interpersonal (e.g., social skills) (http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/multiple-intelligences.html). What is important to note here is that there is not an hierarchy of intelligences implied or inferred according to Gardner. Rather, each intelligence is as valid as the others. Talent is not separate from intelligence. This may seem obvious to my readers but there was a time not so long ago when the two were thought of as separate; "gifted" children were those students classified as having performed well on standardized I.Q. tests and in accomplishing high grades in quantifiable categories.
As the reader has already guessed, when dealing with multiple intelligences easy quantification - read standardization - breaks down and is no longer an accurate nor complete picture of one's intelligence. As already stated the old paradigm gave favor to quantifiable results in mathematics and to subject questions that largely confined answers to knowledge and comprehension - the first two steps of Bloom. I am for instance rather lacking in mathematics. I may not score well on a standardized I.Q. test, but, being a musician, does the I.Q. test evaluate my musical intelligence? Hardly. While I may be able to recall information about The Beatles and/or Beethoven, all that tells the assessor of my intelligence is that I have good recall (knowledge in Bloom) concerning musicians. However, this information does not measure my intelligence as a composer of music. Gardner argued and I agree with his assessment that we need to measure intelligence(s) beyond the relatively narrow and certainly incomplete confines of mathematic/logical and linguistic measurements to encompass other modalities.
Gardner also included an important anthropological aspect in that he argued that different cultures emphasize different intelligences. It seems then that we have come full circle in that culturally biased I.Q. tests are indeed meaningless in a metacultural discussion.
Gardner stressed that each individual should be encouraged to develop the intelligences she possesses. Furthermore, learning occurs according to Gardner along these different modalities. Now we reach the crux of the discussion of Gardner and how his theory relates to our use of the internet in the classroom - and outside of it.
Think for a moment about all of the tools we have discussed and explored thus far this semester. Reflect on how each takes an integrative process and no matter how you slice it, Gardner is there - intentionally or not. Virtually all of the applications we have studied have held to Gardner's maxim that assessment of learning should measure multiple forms of intelligence. Mashups for instance act as multi-pronged learning tools which can and do facilitate learning through a number of modalities. So, the logical/mathematic intelligence is essentially on the same level playing field with the visual/auditory learner. We have seen already that virtual worlds, augmented reality, and even gaming have shown to be effective learning platforms. I will relate a personal experience with regard to this. As many of you know, I am a recent emigre to The Netherlands. My partner's son is 10 years of age and his language of origin is Dutch. However, except for his accent, his English is beyond even many of his American and British peers. While this may not seem remarkable, consider the following: he has only begun formal English training this school year - it is mandatory in The Netherlands. Dutch is the language spoken at home. So how does this child speak speak, understand, and write English so well? He learned English through gaming! America and Britain dominate the gaming industry especially in terms of "A" list games such as Skyrim and Assassin's Creed. This kid has not only achieved proficiency in English that his elder sister has yet to achieve, but has shown significant progress in the areas of synthesis and evaluation: the two highest forms of Bloom's taxonomy. I am working with him now and having him write original stories based upon his time spent in these other worlds. His sense of structure in a story format - in traditional textuality - rivals what I have read from many 10 year old - and OLDER - students in America.
While some might debate whether the lack of empirical evidence of Gardner's theory proves that it is in fact mere hypothesis, can we debate that intelligence is only meaningful when math/logic and linguistic skills are concerned? I think one would be hard pressed to provide a compelling argument against Gardner. But I ask you, if Gardner is wrong, then why have we found so many of these tools so effective and exciting?




Best,
Joe