Where has all the knowledge gone? Activeworlds circa 1999

I began getting a sense of the bigger picture, let’s say the beyond Second Life view, of virtual worlds doing my dissertation lit review. Now that we’re actively looking into AW, I’ve come across a mountain of information. Projects, research, people, consortiums, conferences, all involved in this stuff in the late 90s, early  2000s.

I started on this page of educational resources for AW. Drilling through to this Vlearn 3D, and transcripts from roundtables at AWEDU, to a paper entitled, “3D Virtual Worlds and Learning: An Analysis of the Impact of Design Affordances and Limitations in Active Worlds, blaxxun interactive, and OnLive! Traveler; and A Study of the Implementation of Active Worlds for Formal and Informal Education.

Moral of the Post: Where has all the knowledge gone?

One after the other - Wonderland and Active Worlds

I spent a couple of hours poking around a few nodes in Wonderland , Immersive Education Initiative on the Media Grid, and then in Activeworlds and Activeworlds educational universe.

Wonderland is self-described as primitive in terms of development, but given that it was only launched in June it’s quite impressive and full of potential. What’s most compelling about the grid is that it’s technological infrastructure is distributed, a computational grid. The idea that each entity or organization has a node  on an open grid if fundamentally different than the computing framework of SL or AW, both of which are proprietary. It would seem that the media grid has more Metaverse potential than either SL or AW for this reason.

AW’s browser based interface is really quite impressive. I didn’t do much in there otherwise except fiddle with my avatar, which was also incredibly simple in their new 4.2 release. The user interface is designed quite differently than in SL and thus more useful for learning. For example it’s brower-based so that you get web pages and the AW in interface. AW has been around for since 1996 when it was called AlphaWorld, so they’ve been working on their product for a while and it shows.

I heard again at another conference that the the developments in technology, software and hardware (graphic cards) make it difficult to predict what’s a good investment. It seems that any investment is best made for the short term, at least to start.

Google’s Lively

I downloaded Lively, Google’s avatar-based virtual on my pc last night and poked around a bit. I’ve been reading early reviews in the blogosphere too. Digado said this about his second dip into Lively. One tone is that it’s nothing special, and indeed compared to Second Life, it does lack the creative functionality, technical and aesthetic capacity that make SL so compelling. As it’s been pointed out, it’s a virtual experience not a virtual world, an avatar driven chat room similar to IMVU which has about 2o million users. Not comparing it to SL seems a smart way to go. It has low overhead and low investment. It might actually be a better introduction to avatar-based learning than SL for this reason.

What’s a virtual world & how should we pay attention to them?

Thanks Cathy! Great summary. I was going to comment, but since I can post, :) I thought I’d do that and extend the discussion.

I think we need to refine the term “virtual world” for our audience and context and extend the conversation to include cultural, organizational and pedagogical perspectives.

Improving student learning is our main goal and it’s easy as technologists, to take a somewhat instrumentalist approach to achieving that.

Here are my In-a-nutshell attempts at refining the notion of virtual worlds for our audience and context.
 Cultural: Children are growing up playing in virtual playgrounds like Habbo, Neopets, Club Penguin,etc. Read more from BBC Tens of millions of adults spend an estimated 10-20 (See footnotes) average hours per week in MMOGs and commercially available virtual worlds. The majority are white and middle class. These are not neither culturally nor socially neutral locations of play. They have emerging cultures of their own. In adult environments, there are legacy cultural mores and practices from MUDs, chatrooms, instant messaging and online communities.

Organizational: At the organizational level, these should be considered first as educational technologies. As a public institution we have students, faculty and staff from diverse cultural, SESs and technological backgrounds. We make decisions about human and technological resources to support learning.

Pedagogical: Tools are pedagogical means not ends. At the same time, there is currently more evidence of learning through play, than there is of learning through pedagogy in these environments.  I DO believe people learn in them. The first questions are what, how and why. The second are: are faculty ready to change  what they do, how and why.

1 Ortiz dxe Gortari, A. (2007, September). Second life survey: User profile for psychological engagement & gambling. Paper presented at The Virtual 2007 Conference: Interaction, Stockholm, Sweden.

2 Yee, N. (2006b, June). The demographics, motivations, and derived experiences of users of massively multi-user online graphical environments.
Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 15(3) 309-329.

Learning in Virtualities on June 24

SDSU-DistanceEd-SL

Yesterday’s LAT published a piece about corporate America’s embrace of Second Life. New World Notes’ Wagner James Au, shared some of the back story. Great journalism, it was and what I love about the blogosphere.I added my 2 cents to his post, as I have been here and there, in the Metaverse- YouTube, Twitter,etc. I’m still refining it.

The LAT article is another tidbit to add to my box-o-examples of using SL in courses at SDSU. For now. Change is always afoot.

We’re just starting to go distance-ed at SDSU. Let’s get our footing in the 2D virtual realm first. Let’s get some experience under our belts with the tools we got already. And more importantly let’s start thinking anew about teaching and learning at a distance. It’s a different paradigm, model and set of theories.

It seems that the corporate world has allowed SL to become “official” meeting places for their globally distributed workforces. And why not. It’s outrageously cheap. It’s a new approach. What it offers (small and large scale social events at cool places with cool activities) are simulations of events. I could be mistaken, but I can’t imagine that IBM hosts Aspen ski weekends for it’s middle management in RL (real life). I could be wrong.

In any event, without making this more important than it is, three conditions come to mind and make this relevant to SDSU, 1) People cannot get together face to face, 2) People value (enjoyment, connection, etc) entering SL to meet with others.  3) It’s an alternative, not the only way of adding social connection to a distance learning endeavor.

Universal Design for Learning and Virtual Environments

UDL or Univeral Design for Learning is a simple concept and echoes Don Norman’s point that well-designed things are self-explanatory. Unfortunately our high-tech world is riddled with far more poorly designed widgets than well designed ones. They often frustrate us or make us feel dumb. Few of us recognize them as such, but instead think there’s something wrong with us. Why would they sell such a stupid thing, we think to ourselves instead of saying What a poorly designed widget.

Consider for a moment, a learning situation which makes a learner frustrated or feel dumb. When we design learning with UDL principles, we’re in effect stating that we’re designing learning that is self-explanatory. Feeling dumb because she can’t find the syllabus in the course management system isn’t the fault of the learner but of the course designer. ENACTs UDL Guidelines

Learning that’s designed well, allows for all learners to succeed.

Applying these UDL guidelines when choosing technologies for teaching and learning is important because technology adds layers of richness and complexity to the learning endeavor and can easily muddle it.

Administration- A CMS such as Blackboard centralizes all course related administration. Over the course of their career, students become familiar with BB’s functions and the CMS becomes a utility. Building a course website is nice, when it’s done by a skilled web designer. Websites must be 503 compliant and should be easy to use. Is the time spent on webdesign better spent with something else?

Representation - Provide multiple examples of core concepts in multiple forms. Connect key ideas using varied methods.While technologies facilitate multiple representations, it’s important to consider their properties and enabling surrounding conditions. For example, 2D representations of content have more fidelity in 2D environments. 2D environments are far more accessible than 3D environments.

Expression - Identify and provide tools and scaffolding to accommodate varied entry points and paths to success. Set out clear end goals. Expression and media are intertwined; it’s important to assign the appropriate media to end goals, and have adequate scaffolding. For example, students may need to learn visual literacy in order to work successfully in a visual medium.

Engagement - Allow for alternative levels of challenge and support, and contexts for performance. Articulate long term goals in obtainable objectives. Engagement is connected clearly to course objectives not to technologies. For example, students shouldn’t spend more time dealing with the technology than accomplishing the goal. Tools facilitate not inhibit learning goals.

Assessment - Provide varied forms of assessment which align with course objectives. Use assessments which measure students’ development (knowledge, skill and emotional) accurately. When choosing technologies, consider the alignment of course objectives>assessment>technologies. Measuring students’ satisfaction with a technology doesn’t indicate they have learned.

Next Page →