Liquid Learning

MUVEs and Second Lives

This was a presentation given at the annual King's [College London] Institute of  Learning and Teaching conference, a mainly internal affair aimed at highlighting current educational research within the institution and disseminating good practice. The talk itself formed a general, if critical, introduction to Second Life as a social virtual world and articulated the abundant issues that make SL a challenging yet compelling arena for teaching activities. What was noticeable when putting together these slides was just how *much* is going on in SL, to the extent it was difficult to capture the richness in a short session like this. One of the key threads that ran through the talk considered how the first phase of simply diving in-world and trying things out is being extended by a second phase of serious research activity - evidenced by the number of grants that have been  secured by new projects such as MUVEnation, (Open)Habitat and LLL3D. Some of the early empirical data gathering that I have carried out with fellow researcher Margarita Perez-Garcia has been a study of the non-formal learning opportunities made available to SL citizens in the form of hands-on workshops. The emphasis in this work has been to explore how teachers in short duration SL competency building classes have appropriated virtual spaces and have made use of tools and techniques that may be valuable in understanding what good practice is in MUVE-based teaching. The slides show the culmination of the preliminary data analysis in the form of a taxonomy of practices and a matrix that elaborates four areas of teaching that are formed by axes addressing control of the environment and pedagogical approach. The conclusions are that good practice in these workshops is exemplified by maintaining a close control over the teaching space combined with a reflective and  process orientated  teaching approach.

| View | Upload your own

Loving your avatar: identity, immersion and empathy

At the Berlin Educa Online conference back in November 2007 I started to tackle the problematic issue of identity and identity play in Second Life. I have been consistently fascinated by what I consider one of the key attractions and confusions of SL, namely the ability to slip into another shell and build a unique presence - within what is arguably the richest and most diverse virtual setting at the present time. A large topic for a short talk - so I took a particular focus on one aspect of avatar identity: how we develop a ‘relationship’ with our avatar. Relationship may sound like an odd word to use but I choose this deliberately as for me it captures something of the  discourse that we often read when we talk about our second lives or indeed the characters we build within other online worlds (see ‘Alter Ego: avatars and their creators’ http://www.alteregobook.com).

From  analyses of blog posts and mailing lists, interviews in-world and face-to-face workshops, and from my personal experiences I discovered common threads that run through many narratives in the evolution of avatars. A number of critical points in the development of this relationship over time could be clearly identified in this mapping activity:

The graph 'Development of avatar identity and empathy in MUVEs' is the visual result of this mapping activity and gathers together these key moments along a continuous time-line that stretches from the beginnings of entering the world of SL to the point of rupture where a second avatar may be spawned to cope the complexities of changing identity in-world. The x axis time-line is plotted against a y axis that I have called 'investment' and represents not simply the amount of time we invest in 'working' on our avatars but also the sense of empathy we begin to develop with our virtual other. Running along the time-line there are two drop-out thresholds marked towards the beginning of this path, where technical, competency and 'care' barriers if not surmounted often result in no further or very limited in-world activity. Beyond these points we trace multiple and changing trajectories that reflect the often complex relations we build with our avatar. On the right-hand side three phrases of being in-world are marked out: exploration, professional activity and playfulness which as can be seen in the detailed description below as often antagonistic to one another:

1. Technical and competency threshold: The early technical and competency barriers can undoubtedly be severe for many, to the extent that even when a powerful enough graphics card and a connection with adequate bandwidth have been located, newly formed denizens enter the world only to find themselves trapped on orientation island. The competency requirements for SL are often understated and form a bewildering mix of manual dexterity, games-based visual grammar and client interface navigation that demand serious and determined attention to master. In a recently published student survey, Steve Hornik posted a reflective response to what were in effect a series of negative comments on the use of SL in his accounting course that illustrate just how frustrating to students these early steps can be:
   
   

   "I did not use it that often because it was hard to understand and was too slow on my computer. I could not grasp how to use it well."

   "Honestly, I got so confused trying to simply walk and talk to people that I just ended up getting frustrated."

   Such comments serve as a reminder to all of us who are rushing forwards to introduce such cutting edge technologies into our learning and teaching settings. This situation is not atypical as Judy Robertson reports in a recent post where she came head to head with the technical difficulties that can plague efforts even at the institutional level:

   "We have two multimedia labs full of computers which are meant to be our souped up fast computers for this module. Alas, these computers meet only the minimum spec for SL but not the recommended spec. This is the difference between a happy well adjusted lecturer and a raving maniac. The computers keep crashing. Sometimes they run terribly slowly. And to add to the circus, there were intermittent network problems. The upshot of all this was that the students got frustrated."

2. Threshold of care:  One of the most difficult moments to pin down in the process of building a virtual identity. It marks a fuzzy boundary beyond which we begin to feel an emotional pull towards our virtual self and yes, we start to care about our avatar. Our creation has become an entity, even a personality, in its own right. How does this happen and how is this possible? The clearest way of understanding this process is one that touches mainly, though not exclusively, on the concepts of social and cultural capital: the building of friendships and connections; becoming part of a community; purchasing artifacts that increase our avatar's aesthetic appeal; a variety of other cultural exchanges and physical engagements that can be as simple as building ones own in-world residence and holding a house warming party.
   
   
3. Schism: As our in-world interactions become more elaborate and diverse a moment is reached where we feel a tension between our single avatar and the multiple roles that our virtual self is able to adopt. We may exist as both a playful representation of our selves alongside a virtual presence that is comprehended as an extension of our professional lives. SL offers a vast range of highly developed sub-cultures and communities that are fun, enlightening and self-revealing to explore yet these require a level of engagement that does not always sit easily with a professional demeanor. Spending time as a neko, vampire, furry, Gorean slave or participating in other roleplaying spaces that  have corresponding dress-codes, social norms and modes of behaviour may begin to sit uncomfortably within the embodiment provided within a single avatar.
   
   
4. Managed instablity: This describes the ongoing flux between playful and professional modes of in-world existence that is, for example, revealed in lengthy discussions amongst educators (cf. SLED list) of what represents a professional appearance in SL with questions posed that tackle seemingly mundane issues of where to purchase 'correct' outfits for teaching and the 'correct' anatomical and visual configuration we expect of students, visitors and tutors alike. As 'AJ' comments (reproduced with kind permission from an original SLED list posting) this in-world tension may result in real-world action:
   

   "Beyond the psycho-babble, the reason for more than one avatar was quite simple.  At the point where my employer, a state institution, began paying the bills for my work as AJ Brooks, I felt it necessary to have a second avatar.  First off, I felt it was the ethical thing to do. Second, I wanted a CLEAR distinction between what I was doing for work and what I was doing for myself, on my own time."

   
   
5. Multiple avatars: Diverse personal definitions of self and approaches to this play/work border are clearly visible in SL profiles. Statements are found that on one hand appear to mark sameness - 'I am my avatar' - and yet on the other hand celebrate difference and possibility - 'Keep SL in SL and RL in RL'. The struggle to stabilise the tensions between multiple modes of existence within a single frame can lead to the spawning of a second avatar - a blank persona that can act as a safety valve allowing these multiple states to co-exist. Multiple avatars in effect offer multiple channels for reflecting the range of roles and identities that we take for granted in our everyday existence. This can be a liberating experience for many as it suddenly frees the creator from the behavioural pressures that dominate formal settings even when they are translated into our virtual and imaginary worlds. Multiple avatars also form part of a strategy for addressing digital reputation management issues that are currently underexposed but of increasing importance to those of us who live and work in virtual spaces.

Many of the moments described above are particularly well summed up in the SLED list post below, reproduced with kind permission from 'AJ', who describes the reasons behind the creation of his small team of avatars:

"I have three avatars. AJ Brooks is my first avatar, 1st rez date coming up in January.  This is the avatar I first came into SL with and to this day use AJ for all things work related.  AJ has never really been one to "socialize" as some of my non-education friends do, such as going to clubs, puttering around, etc...  I did, of course, visit a number of places when I first came in and didn't have a "home", but now when I go out to visit someplace, at least as AJ, it is purely business.  AJ's base of operations is the CHSS Island and is normally on from 9-5 M-F, except when needed for teaching purposes (I use AJ as the avatar for my classes also) and for conferences, etc...  AJ looks a bit like me in so much as I tried to keep facial features similar, height, and hair color also, although I will admit that he is slimmer and a bit more chiseled than I. Very recently, having run out of groups, not being able to drop any more from AJ, but needing to work with faculty, etc..., I needed to start a third avatar, an alt that would be purely a "CHSS Island maintenance guy".  I've shared land ownership, buildings, etc..., plus use that avatar for creating groups related to CHSS business.  This avatar is currently a cyborg but could certainly take another shape, but would probably not be a human form.  This is purely a utility.
Wealthy Mizser is my second avatar and owns an art gallery on Avendale called The Gallery Beleza at Avendale and also own a home on Nevi, which is also one of the five sims that make up the Avendale community.  Wealthy is usually on after 5pm and on the weekends.  Wealthy is blonde with blue eyes has a body worth every linden (as opposed to having to slave for hours at the gym, which is very non-virtual), and is definitely the one to attend a party or other social event, or even to poke around places around SL that really have nothing to do with The Gallery."

Where next? This study marks the starting point for a series of other ongoing investigations that include a review of the social nature of profile building in SL as well as a more detailed engagement with competency frameworks. So ... more to come.

Assessing factors in the introduction of ICT in formal settings

This is the final tool that was released during the 6th Open Classroom Conference in Stockholm. In many ways this is also the most accessible and purposely so as it forms the final stages of actively assessing and identifying major factors in the introduction of educationally orientated ICTs in formal settings. The tool was developed with and first documented on 'espheres identitaires' by Margarita Pereze-Garcia.

The wheel itself is I think fairly self explanatory. It works as a spider graph and in this particular version the factors are broken down into in four categories or dimensions:

• Institutional profile
• Learner profile
• Teacher profile
• Teaching and learning profile

Download ICT_Introduction_Wheel.pdf (155.6K)

Each of the major categories contains a set of factors that impact on the successful integration of ICTs. These factors are individually assessed by marking each of the axes using a rating of high medium or low in terms of postiveness or readiness of each variable in relation to the technology or intervention in question. Once built the spider diagram visually uncovers weak areas and possible barriers to ICT implementation. As a further note it is important to be reflective in this kind of exercise and appreciate the subjective position given by our personal experience and perspective - each of us clearly act and work within our own particular context and therefore maintain what I would describe as a partial perspective. This becomes evident as we find there are some dimensions where our evaluations will be limited – places where it is difficult to make judgments and where we may need to gather further information. The completed wheel can be utilised to build a list of barriers to the successful introduction of ICTs and help build a coherent strategy for overcoming them. Within this list of ‘action areas’ we will also discover points where personal influence is limited and to mitigate these barriers we may need to engage the support of other actors.

This is version 1 of the tool and a newer version will be released shortly where each of the four categories can be assessed within an independent wheel. We also hope to build up a number of comparative case studies where we can start documenting recurring issues, barriers and solutions across differing technological deployments.

Literature reviewed during the creation of the tool:

• The ICT impact report by EUN
• E-learning Nordic 2006 - Uncovering the Impact of ICT on Education in the Nordic Countries
• The impact of ICT in schools - a landscape review by Professor Rae Condie & Bob Munro with the collaboration of Liz Seagraves & Summer Kenesson
• A Framework for Leading School Change in using ICT: Measuring Change by Sue Trinidad, Paul Newhouse & Barney Clarkson
• ICT: Using indicators to assess impact of ICT in education

 

Visualising a 3D matrix

What is the best way to represent 3D in 2D? This was one of the difficulties expressed in feedback from the Stockholm workshop where the 'interpreting technologies in use' diagram was presented: an analytical matrix comprising x,y, and z axes and offering descriptors that span active to passive, isolated to social and formal to informal. It is not a simple process to create a legible and visually attractive representation of a 3D matrix on a flat page. This is probably why in my original working of this diagram the formal to informal polarity was not included as an axes even though it is more than ever a vital part of how we interpret our use of technologies - as a brief aside I feel this dimension to be particularly relevant when we consider how emerging  Web 2.0 technologies, that are in their wider internet usage largely informal, change in style and nature of their usage pattern when placed in more formal settings ... such as education ... a good example being the institutional deployment of blogging tools.

With the three axes to deal with during the workshop one of the participants, Per Filipsson from the Nationellt Centrum för Flexibelt Lärande put  forward some rough sketches and in a series of emails since the Open Classroom Conference he has kindly sent me the digital versions which are both excellent and engaging representations, thanks Per:

Vision one: 3D matrix for 'interpreting technologies in use'

Vision two: 3D box for 'interpreting technologies in use'

 

Making the right MUVE

After a squeezing a few free minutes this morning I have found found time to publish the first set of slides from the Open Classroom Conference in Stockholm held in October 2007. The workshop itself focussed on using the tools that I have described in my previous two posts and included work on identifying critical factors impacting on the introduction of ICTs into educational settings that has been initially presented here by Margarita Perez-Garcia on her personal site, 'espheres identitaires'.

Workshop presentation: Making the right MUVE:

| View | Upload your own

 

How do we interpret technologies in use?

This is the second in a series of tools that were released at the October 2007 Open Classroom Conference in Stockholm, alongside the socio-technical activity tool that was described in my previous post. It has benefited immensely from participant feedback during the workshop session and what feels like a finished version - or at least a version that is ready for further comment/criticism - is presented here.

The development of the tool stems from my own engagement with the integration, embedding, deployment, evaluation - pick your own circumstance – of technologies in education. An ongoing and not necessarily simple process that requires some understanding of how we actually use technologies or perhaps what is more easily described as a sense of what technologies become, defined by their patterns of use. This is something I recognise as complex relationship between design, affordance and appropriation. The 3D matrix I have drawn provides a mechanism to come to that kind understanding by deploying three descriptive polarities that run from informal to formal, active to passive and isolated to social.

How does it work in practice? Well my feeling is that this tool holds a number of possible uses by providing insights into how a technology is understood in terms of its current configuration or context, its desired or imagined configuration and as a comparator to the originally designed possibilities that we imagine programmed into the technology. By examining technology use across these dimensions the matrix provides not only a sense of the learning spaces we create but acts as a tool for identifying change processes. If we place our ‘technologies in use’ on the grid and find they are not acting in the areas we either anticipated or desired then we can begin to question how we might shift their position. In other words, explore the change processes we need to apply. The tool is in this way designed as complementary to the socio-technical activity tool, as these change processes will generally be identified as aspects within the three triangles of technology, literacy and pedagogical approach. For example, moving blogging from an isolated and infrequent enterprise to one that is active, social and community based may require: technological action such as a commitment that blogs will be maintained beyond the life-span of a particular course; a literacy intervention so users understand blogging as a genre and the possibilities for network building via by RSS feeds and blog rolls; and finally a pedagogical intervention where blogs become an active site for formative feedback and critical commentary.

Finally it is worth making clear, though I think this is already implied in the description above, that technologies within the matrix are not meant to be fixed but rather mobile and subject to change and may also occupy multiple sites depending on the perspective and context of use. There is no essence to the technologies themselves, except for an associated design value, and so we can see technologies as maintaining variable amounts of interpretive flexibility (Pinch et. al.). As technologies penetrate and spread in use then they tend to become understood more in terms of both the affordances of the technology and the context of use itself. To take blogs again as example, then one reason for their success as an emerging technology has been this very flexibility in that they can be interpreted and therefore used in multiple ways.

Once again I am happy to hear any comments on this work.

References:
Pinch, Trevor J. and Wiebe E. Bijker. "The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other." Social Studies of Science 14 (August 1984): 399-441

Evolution of a socio-technical activity tool for ICT in education

The socio-technical activity tool was developed while traveling back and forth between various European destinations. It started as a partially sketched exploration into the factors that impact our decision-making processes when we come to choose, or indeed evaluate, what might consider as appropriate technologies for enhancing learning and teaching. At the beginning the aims were 'simple', asking myself straightforward questions regarding the major factors or dimensions that we should consider in these decision-making processes.

 

The tool has now developed beyond these initial doodlings to something far more concrete ... forming the centre piece in the first session of a double workshop at the October 2007 Open Classroom Conference hosted in Stockholm. It was held up for public scrutiny alongside a number of other tools (see Prism(lab) and esphères identitaires) that have been developed with Margarita for exploring  the relationships within educationally orientated socio-technological systems. The current version comprises three triangles representing the key dimensions of technology, literacy and pedagogical approach that converge on the central notion of a decision activity which could be, for example, assessing the appropriateness of a particular tool in a particular educational setting. Each triangle is surrounded by a neighbourhood of descriptive sub-factors or variables:

1. Technology {Functionality, Cost, Infrastructure}
2. Literacy {Knowledge, Skills and Competencies}
3. Pedagogical approach {Context, Policy and Strategy, Purpose}

What I like most about the diagram is that as a visualisation tool it seems to work. It must be conceded that there is no simple solution to describing all of the actors and interwoven nuances that converge on decision making processes for ICTs in education but the diagram leaves open multiple interpretations and I think holds enough flexibility to be read in several ways. The key though is activity and the critical central tenet is being able to move oneself towards a position of making reflexive decisions while at the same time providing a balance between pragmatism and the naturally ecological or organic framework within which these decisions exist. More often than not our technological choice-making processes are driven by the ideal of finding good 'fitness for purpose' and yet through a set of these often complex and sometimes unacknowledged factors we can find ourselves making choices that are skewed by instinctual understandings. Here then, the socio-technical activity tool provides a reflective device for interpreting our actions.

An occasional paper detailing this and other tools developed for the workshop will be published shortly on the Prism(lab) research site and include complementary work from Margarita Perez-Garcia. And just for the record I am also including a snapshot of those early doodlings.

 

Virtual environments and game-based learning

These presentations form part of a double workshop given alongside Margarita Perez-Garcia at the recent 6th Open Classroom Conference held in Stockholm from October 24th to 26th 2007. The title for this particularly lively session was “Second Life beyond the hype: taking real world education into virtual spaces, a recipe for failure?”. Audience participation was high and the discussions that precipitated from each of these position pieces provided valuable insight into how and where educators see the current state of play with regards to using MUVEs (such as Second Life) in educational contexts. As with all emerging technologies, the understandings elaborated during the one and half hours stemmed as much from reflections on technology i.e. metaverses in use, as from the design principles that lie behind many 'narrative free' virtual world offerings. In light of this, much of the session concentrated on pragmatics, taking apart the current rhetoric on MUVEs that seems to promise a 'do anything', 'be anything' alternative reality.

 

Presentation 1: Virtual vanity: sex, shopping and reputation in Second Life

| View | Upload your own

 

Presentation 2: MUVEs: technical state-of-play and their future potentialities

| View | Upload your own

 

Further details of the workshop and other resources can be found on the newly launched Prism(lab) site.

 

MUVEnation, motivating pupils, linking teachers through active learning with Multi-User Virtual Environments

After a successful bid into the last round of the EU Life-Long Learning call a new project on Multi-User Virtual Environments and active learning will be starting in December this year involving a group of  seven European partners. The funding of this project is further evidence of the increasing interest amongst not only educational researchers but also the major funding organizations in exploring the potentialities of 3D virtual worlds for learning and teaching. This type of large scale endeavour will be particularly valuable in building  a strong evidence base to support the  perceived affordances that virtual worlds offer as a new new modes of social interaction in a rapidly changing educational landscape.

Partnership:

• University of Macerata, IT, Promotor
• MENON Network, BE, Coordinator
• FIM New Learning, DE
• Florida Centre de Formació, ES
• Agence Départementale du Numérique des Pyrénées Atlantiques, FR
• King's College London, UK
• University of Reading, UK

Project overview:

Based on the potential and opportunities afforded by active learning approaches combined with Massive Multi-Users Virtual Environments (MUVEs) as effective solutions to inspire and engage learners and foster motivation, the MUVEnation project's general aim is to contribute to explore, analyse, develop and evaluate within context the effectiveness of this innovative way of teaching and learning with regard to some of the problems of the educational system such as pupils motivation and participation. MUVEnation is founded on the so called 'teachers' effect” on educational innovation and its approach is to explore the promising potential of active learning approaches integrated to MUVEs by starting from the analysis of some major educational problems such as the lack of motivation and find how their integration in education can effectively foster pupils' motivation and participation.

Therefore the MUVEnation project seeks to develop a European peer learning program for teacher training for the use of “Active learning with Multi-Users Virtual Environments to increase pupils' motivation and participation in education”. By doing so, MUVEnation seeks to encourage the development of teachers' metacognition strategies, problem solving, critical thinking and professional judgement so they will get used to make decisions about which technology to use for which students, how to do it, and how to judge the effectiveness of its use. The main objective of the program is to develop in-service and future teachers' competencies and skills so they can contribute by their innovative practice to bring solutions into their environments to increase learners motivation and participation in key fields of common interest in Europe such as the participation of girls in mathematics, science and technology; boys and literacy; the participation in education of children and young adults with disabilities; the combat against dropouts; the cross-fertilisation between informal and formal learning environments; and the smooth and successful transition between school and work. .

The project's specific objectives are:

•    To develop inductive-deductive learning experiences, methodologies, materials and tools that will support the ‘intellectual scaffolding’ needed to integrate MUVEs into the classroom by exploring the nexus between ICT, learning and motivation, and application of active learning methodologies (e.g. Buzz groups, affinity groups, solution or critic groups, ‘teach-write-discuss’, critique sessions, role-play, debates, case studies and integrated projects);
•    To implement technological solutions allowing enhanced online social interaction for the peer learning community of teachers;
•    To set up the peer learning community of teachers in order to carry out the following activities:
•    to identify and analyse training needs of in-service European educators who are running, or wish to run, educational projects in MUVEs in K-12 and middle and upper secondary education;
•    to collect and document good practices illustrating the use of active learning methodologies with MUVEs to increase pupils motivation and participation in education;
•    to design pedagogical patterns that give a solution for identified pedagogical problems in regard to pupils motivation and education in these new environments;
•    To guarantee the wide dissemination of the project's deliverables amongst European HE institutions, teachers’ training centres, teachers’ training and teachers’ networks and/or professional communities.

Amongst the concrete results of the project, we highlight, the peer learning community where 60-80 teachers will participate during 6 months, the inductive-deductive learning activities for prerequisites acquisition, the methodological frameworks for the needs analysis, the best practices collection and the pedagogical patterns design and development, the national collection of information in each country participating in the program, the European reports integrating the data collected during the activities, the teachers own reflection and assessment of the activities they have participated on and the online conference.

The dangers of habit

Three linked ideas about seeing, the self, life and education. What is that moment when we suddenly notice something or have a moment of recognition - of a thing that has been there, in our line of sight, but has not yet registered, or maybe we saw once and now has faded and now again suddenly it leaps to the foreground of our conscious thought?

*filters* - we begin to recognise filters exist when we realise we can only ever possess a partial perspective on our lives and indeed the lives of others. There is what we 'see' and more importantly what we do *not* see. Filters, arguably, develop from:

*habit* - repetitive actions that brings about:

*desensitisation* - where certain emotions, visual stimuli, intellectualthought become the common place and commonsensical and eventually the unnoticed and in many ways the accepted and unquestioned. Ideologies by any other name.

Deleuze might say question everything, do not accept the obvious, yet do we really have the capacity to live this on a daily basis. If our social life, our existence, is so complicated with multiple possibilities then yes this complicatedness itself seems on the surface 'good' but how do we navigate and choose between these multiple possibilities that are constantly available. Choices in life do not exist on an even plane, they run like deep rivers and to swim against the seemingly natural flow or to strike a new course, against the tides that push us, then we need energy and to fight each 'barrier' to accomplish this and only in this fight do we begin to understand or find illuminated just how deeply embedded we have become in certain modes of being and thinking. Each battle erodes a part of our desire for a certain way of being, gradual compromise, for the sake of simplicity perhaps? Internally we reason these compromises, making calculations of effort versus worth, to leave enough energy for reaching goals that are in many ways undetermined and may exist simply as space for further possibility and that elusive sense of self-satisfaction. Herein, with time, we find that each of us has their own given, relative and culturally mediated sense of happiness.

So education must not simply be about learning to live mechanically in this world but surely to have the tools and abilities to create visions that can provide the possibility for thinking differently and in this, the means to visualise change and paths that might take us there. But this is two-sided in the sense that we need the capacity to deal with change and the challenges presented to our own sense of being becoming in this world. Ways of coping with the unforeseen and the unexpected. Our education, our learning is as much about creating change as it is with dealing with change and the nature of change itself.