Virtual Worlds in Education Velon 15.03.2011

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?