virtual conversation

8/8/2019 virtual conversation

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/virtual-conversation 1/6

hether or not it is an accurate portrayal, the old stereotype ofhigher education is the lecture hall, where students sit passively and take notes from a wise professor whose experience andknowledge can be shared only in the classroom. The professor’srole is to dispense information, and the students’ role is to receiveit. We all know the old adage: “Tell me, and I’ll forget; show me, and

I may remember; involve me, and I’ll understand.” However idealistic our concep-tions of education may be, those involved in higher education know how difficultit is to truly achieve student involvement. Even the most inventive instructor hasthe occasional disaffected student who simply refuses to engage. But outsidethe classroom, that same student who refuses to engage in classroom discussionmay well be deeply involved in social conversations, politics, or other communi-ties. Although the barrier between inside and outside the classroom has beendifficult to overcome, new social media forms today are starting to break downthat barrier and enable dialogue. The participatory culture offers exciting new opportunities to pull learners into conversations and turn passive, knowledge-receiving students into active, knowledge-making student.

EducausE r e v i e w september/Otobe r 2008 I l l u s t r a t i o n b y R a n d y L y h u s , © 2 0 0 8

sarah Robbin-Bell

© 2 0 0 8 Sa ra h Ro b b in s -Be l l

Sarah Robbins-Bell (“Intellagirl Tully”), a Ph.D. candidate at Ball State University, is thecoauthor of Second Life for Dummies and Editor of the Second Life Education Blog (http://sl-educationblog.org).

VirtualConVersation

“inellagrl

tully”



26 EducausE r e v i e w september/Otober 2008

The Social Media RiftThe false separation between classroomlearning and life learning is falling away with each new form of social media thatbecomes part of our everyday life. Evenold models of social media, like e-mail,have begun to break down the barri-

ers in the classroom. Students who feelmore comfortable asking questions intext may engage in conversations withtheir instructors and fellow students

via e-mail or a web forum. The moreconversations that an instructor canencourage, the more involved studentsmay become.

But what is “social media,” exactly? Ithelps to think of other models of mediain contrast. The broadcast media model,probably the most familiar model, allowsfor one-way communication between a

large broadcasting company (e.g., radio,television, newspaper) and an audience.In this model, there is no opportunity forconversation because only one party hasthe ability to speak. Contrast this modelwith more recent forms of communica-tion available via the Internet. Blogs,for example, give a writer (or group ofwriters) the ability to distribute informa-tion just as a broadcaster would do, butwith an important addition: the com-ment feature. Blog readers can engage

with the writer, ask questions, and leavecomments and critiques. Social mediagives both the producer and the con-sumer a voice.

Today’s moderately tech-savvy stu-dent is accustomed to having a voice.Social networks (e.g., Facebook), instantmessaging, blogs, and virtual worlds notonly allow conversation but rely on it.

After all, what would a service like You-Tube or Digg look like if no one contrib-uted content and no one commented?Instead, these popular social media ser-

vices feature high levels of participation,numerous contributions and discus-sions, and even detailed debates.

We know that the demographicsof Facebook, Digg, Fark, and World of

Warcraft are the same as the generaldemographics of college/university students. So, why don’t we see the samelevels of participation in the social mediathat are used in the classroom (typically,learning management systems) as are evi-

dent in the social media that students en-gage in voluntarily? I think the problem isthat our pedagogy often isn’t ready for an

increase in conversation.The best way to explore this chal-

lenge is by focusing on one form of socialmedia and investigating how it may be ef-fectively integrated into education. I willfocus here on virtual worlds. They have,by far, the most choices for conversationand seem to be a form that not only at-tracts millions of zealous users (SecondLife has over fourteen million residents)but also encourages a great deal of meta-conversation (i.e., forums, websites, and

blogs about virtual worlds).

Defining Virtual Worlds Virtual worlds come in lots of flavors, butthey all share four characteristics:

1. Persistence: A virtual worldcan’t be paused; it existswhether or not a user islogged in.

2. Multiuser: A virtual worldmust be populated or atleast have the potential

for population. A single-player world would befairly useless.

3. Avatars: Rather than offer-ing an icon to represent auser, a virtual world allowsa user to create an agentthat takes action, an avatar. This representation of theuser can perform actionsthat the user requests,

such as fighting, expressing emotion,or simply moving through a space.

4. Wide Area Network: A virtual world isfacilitated via a wide area network rather than a local one. Freed fromthe limited access of a locally hostedspace, virtual worlds have the poten-

tial to be global and large.

These four traits by no means form aconsensual definition of virtual worldsamong the community of scholars whostudy them, but the traits do function asa foundation for a discussion of the pos-sibilities for virtual worlds in education.

Why Virtual Worlds Work in EducationFor most of today’s educators, virtualworlds without game mechanics—virtualworlds such as Active Worlds, Second

Life, and Croquet—offer the most flex-ibility and opportunity for educationalapplications. The persistence, multiuserenvironment, avatars, and wide areanetwork possibilities of these virtualworlds can be powerful for teaching andlearning.

PersistenceThe brick-and-mortar classroom thatan instructor uses to teach a course isfilled with other classes at different

times and is locked for the night and onholidays. By contrast, a virtual world isalways open. If we compare a popularand public virtual world with a privatechat room established for a course (a tooloften used for conversation in distance

The moreconversations

that aninstructor

can

encourage,the moreinvolved

students maybecome.

The map of the Second Life world demonstrates the size of the virtual space. The thousands of user-owned islands existwhether a user is present or not.




learning), we can see an immediate andpowerful difference. If I log in to thechat room at a time when no one else is

logged in, there is nothing for me to do.My classmates aren’t there. My instructorisn’t there. Other than typing to myself,there are no activities I can take part in.

A virtual world, however, offers build-ings and objects and activities—even ifno one else happens to be there. If I login to Second Life at a time when noneof my classmates are logged in, there isstill an entire world to explore, skills tohone, and other people to meet. A per-sistent world offers persistent learningopportunities. It is up to the instructor

and the student to define and explorewhat kind of activities will be useful forthe learning goals of a particular course,but it’s possible that many of those goalscan be accomplished in the community at large rather than in a delineated spaceintended for “learning.”

Multiuser Having more than one user in a virtualspace certainly makes the space more

interesting to be in, but the benefitsgo far beyond that. Many other tech-nologies can put several users into a

synchronous space; what virtual worldsoffer in addition is the ability to have amassive number of users in the sameworld at the same time. Second Lifeoften has more than 50,000 simultane-ous users. No other technology can hostthat many users communicating in asynchronous space. This massive syn-chronicity not only allows for a rapidly developing culture within the worldbut also creates a sense of presence, ofbeing in the same space together, thata chat room or discussion board simply

cannot create.

AvatarsUnlike an icon, which is a metaphoricrepresentation of a user such as a smallpicture or a username, an avatar canperform an action. If the user types in acommand or clicks a button, the avatarcan be made to run, fight, fly, chat, orchange into another form. The avatarfunctions as the user’s agent of action in

This screenshot of the Second Life map, with green dots representing users currently logged in, demonstrates the power of a multiuser world for providing constant community.

Users of The Palace may choose or create onlyvery basic avatars.




the virtual world. In addition to takingaction, though, an avatar must take aform. The avatar’s form, and the flexibil-ity of that form, are important features:the communication and expressionafforded by a flexible avatar-creationsystem are well suited to educational ap-plications. Even limited avatar-creation

systems can be used to explore issues ofidentity formation and cultural litera-cies. Understanding the range of avatarcustomization between various types of

virtual worlds is key to exploring pos-sible uses in education.

Some virtual worlds offer only staticavatars. For example, The Palace allowsusers to choose or create only very basicavatars. Yet even though static avatarsmight not offer opportunities for visual

self-expression, the limitations of a staticavatar force users to express themselvesin other ways. Since avatar names andtext chat (voice chat is usually not anoption is such simplistic worlds) are theonly tools available for user expression,the ability to express emotion, person-ality, and opinion must be contained

in that text. Students exploring writtenexpression of cultural shifts in languageand the communication embedded insimplistic avatar actions (e.g., movingfrom side to side on screen, facing anavatar away from the group or person theuser is text-chatting with) can truly iso-late and explore the impact of the toolsthat are available.

Virtual worlds with conditional avatarcustomization, such as the virtual world

Understandingthe rangeof avatar

customizationbetween

various typesof virtual

worlds is keyto exploringpossible usesin education.

World of Warcraft offers users only a few options for avatar customization. Avatars are limited to males and females of stereotypical forms, with a few facesand hairstyles to choose from. Players can customize later only through changing clothing and weapons.




created for the game World of Warcraft(WoW), are useful for exploring the de- velopment of cultural literacies and thesteps to establishing social reputationand status. Although avatars aren’t flu-idly changeable, the customization thatis possible has meaning. For example,

WoW players who are highly literate inits system can recognize and “read” an-other player’s clothing and gear and un-derstand that wearing a certain helmet,sword, or armor means that the playeris of a certain class and level of accom-

plishment and has completed a difficultquest. Every virtual world with condi-tional avatar customizations has similarspecific cultural literacies related to ava-tar appearance—all of which are usefulto students exploring those concepts inareas such as literacy studies, anthropol-ogy, psychology, and sociology.

Virtual spaces such as Second Life, inwhich avatars are nearly uncondition-ally customizable, offer educational op-

portunities similar to those available inconditional avatar spaces, but on a moredramatic scale. In a virtual world in whichthe only static element of the avatar is itsname, educators have nearly limitlessoptions. Students can use their avatar toexpress themselves in a way that is simi-lar to their profile on a social network,resembling who they are in real life. Alter-natively, the flexible avatar can also allow students to experiment with personalitiesand roles that they might not otherwisebe able to try out. For example, a non-

handicapped student can take on a handi-capped avatar to see how it feels. A malestudent can take on a female identity, ora female student can take on a male iden-tity, to learn about gender stereotypes androles. Yet these role-playing educationalopportunities are possible only in a spacewith flexible avatar identity.

Wide Area NetworkEducation has become far more global

The flexibleavatar

can allowstudents toexperiment

withpersonalitiesand rolesthat theymight not

otherwise beable to try

out.

Second Life avatars are customized by each user with user-generated content such as wings, skin textures, and attached accessories.




with the advent of the Internet. Class-mates need not be in the same country,never mind in the same physical space.But a virtual world hosted on a wide areanetwork offers more than just distanceeducation. The ability to mix studentsfrom all over the world in one virtual

world means that campuses can beginto blend classes from different subjectareas as well as different campuses. A group of Florida students studying theGerman language and a group of Ger-man students learning English couldmeet in a virtual world to game togetheror simply to hold a social event in whichboth groups can be immersed in thelanguage they’re learning with a com-munity of native speakers. An advertis-ing class and a business administrationclass could work together to begin a

Second Life company. Beyond combin-ing classes, the wide area network of

virtual worlds implies that the space ispublic to join and participate in, mean-ing that students can interact with andlearn from a larger community than canbe offered by their local campus.

The Place of Virtual Worlds in EducationEarlier, I claimed that the reason par-ticipation in educational social media is

lower than participation in other, volun-tary forms of social media is because ourpedagogy often isn’t ready for an increasein conversation. The above explorationof the characteristics of virtual worldsreveals how this form of social media canbecome an important tool in an educa-tor’s arsenal. But using this tool requiresa shift in thinking and an adjustment inpedagogical methods that will embracethe community, the fluid identity, andthe participation—indeed, the increasedconversation—that virtual spaces can

provide.The first hurdle is to accept that aninstructor cannot have total control of alearning space while allowing true, openparticipation from students in a virtualworld. We need to learn to embrace moreparticipatory pedagogy if we’re to makethe most of the technologies that areavailable to us. For example, I recently at-tended a conference presentation abouta college’s Second Life projects. Part of

the college’s virtual campus policy wasthat all students were required to useone of a few, mandated avatar options.Limiting students to “real world” cloth-ing that was based on a private schooluniform (which, by the way, the real-lifestudents weren’t required to wear on

the brick-and-mortar campus), this col-lege completely removed the powerfulpossibilities that flexible avatars afford.The students involved in the projectweren’t allowed to express themselvesusing their avatars; they weren’t allowedto experiment with creating clothing andother avatar accessories that might havebeen useful in class. Other examples ofsuch limitations placed on virtual worldsby educators include sequestering stu-dents to a given space, imposing behav-ior rules that go against the dominant

culture and social mores of the space,and over-structuring experiences suchthat students have no opportunity tocontribute.

Virtual worlds in which ogres canattack, non-students can walk intoclassrooms, and “griefers” (virtual worldtrouble-makers of various degrees ofseriousness) can intrude on an instruc-tor’s plan might feel a bit too out ofcontrol for education. It is natural foran educator to want to plan, structure,

and control what happens in class, but virtual worlds and most other socialmedia require educators to embrace con-

versation and participation—meaningthat educators are only one side of theconversation and that they must learn totake a back-seat to the experiences thatstudents bring to the class. In a privatespace, such as a learning managementsystem, educators might have controlover who can chat and when and thus canknow that the space is “safe.” However,the more control educators exert, the less

genuine will be the participation and themore sterile will be the learning space.Educators and educational institu-

tions need to understand that virtualworlds, like other social media, are hereto stay and that these exciting forms ofmedia are not a threat to formal educa-tion. The genuine conversation and par-ticipation that virtual worlds encourageis a step toward more authentic learningfor all students.e

We need tolearn to

embrace moreparticipatory

pedagogyif we’re tomake the

most of thetechnologiesthat areavailableto us.

Documents

virtual conversation