With winter break upon us, I've had the opportunity to explore a virtual world that's been on my list of sites to check out for some time: Kaneva. Overall, it has the feel of an earlier version of Second Life but with some significant positive differences, especially as it relates to education. I may do a more complete review of Kaneva later, but I thought I would end the year with a brief overview of the current state of several virtual worlds. As always, I am looking at it through the prism of potential educational applications.
Second Life
Pros: SL remains the hundred pound gorilla among virtual worlds. It has the most customizability of any virtual world, by far. If you can dream it, it can probably be created in SL. The addition of voice chat has certainly made it a more useful tool for instruction. It has a truly international user base, and has been embraced by many organizations who are creating content in-world.
Cons: It's so huge, it's almost isolating. Sure, there are tens of thousands of people online at any time, but try finding them! When a few people do get together, lag is often an issue as the servers creak under the load of all that customized content. Then there's the question of cost: hosting an "island" is outside the reach of most teachers or schools, as it costs more than a thousand dollars to set up and several hundred each month to keep it going. And did I mention there are separate worlds for teens and for adults? This makes it nigh impossible for K-12 teachers to dip their toes in without a serious financial commitment, and the criminal background checks (no kidding!) don't help adults feel any more welcome in the teen grid. There have been many complaints about the possibility of teens in the adult grid, since there is a lot of "mature" content there.
vSide
Pros: I remain enthusiastic about the long-term potential of vSide, which is probably the most fun and game-like of the virtual worlds on this list. Its slick interface is very user friendly, with a miniscule learning curve when compared to some other worlds. It is open to all ages, and is a very attractive space for young users with its complete integration of several popular (and legal) music streams, as well as the presence of numerous real-world clothing and entertainment brands. Most items in the game, including generously appointed apartments for individual users, are available by earning points rather than shelling out any actual cash.
Cons: vSide remains a teen-targeted consumer experience with little user-generated content. While there are plenty of things to do on your own in vSide, like completing quests, finding secrets, answering trivia bots, and playing rudimentary games, there are not many compelling or educational events. Additionally, the apartments available to users are not persistent; others may only access them while the owner of the space is online.
Kaneva
Pros: Kaneva seems to be coming into its own as a happy medium between the ease of vSide and the customizability of Second Life. Like vSide (but unlike Second Life), it offers a dual payment system, one based on cash paid in and the other based on reward points for spending time in Kaneva and contributing to the community. User spaces from small to huge are available and persistenly exist. Cost of entry is much lower than Second Life and customizability is higher than vSide. There is also a nice merger between social networking on the company's website and live interaction in the "3D world".
Cons: Only available for Windows. While users can upload and sell customized clothing, other user-created objects are limited to their creator's home or hangout as objects cannot be linked or made to do anything, and collaboration on building is not yet possible. Also, the graphics look more primitive than either of the other virtual worlds.
I think that it is very difficult, as an educator, to totally ignore and bypass the fact that our students are exposes and use technology, and are adept in the Microsoft office programs. I mean they are practically born knowing how to work process. In the voice thread, http://voicethread.com/#q.b90321.i459058, several of the people involved used the term 21st century learning, and connected that with word processing and software technologies. I think in order for education and classrooms to truly become multi-functioning and multi-level learning environments, we can teach the software; we need to use and incorporate it. We need to use the Internet not as a path to check email, and facebook, but as a tool in our teaching tool box. Use it as a medium in the art classroom, or as another way to display work, critique, or research. Using technology enhances education, and we as 21st century educators need to rethink and redefine the word technology. Just think a pencil was once considered new technology.
ReplyDeleteJames Bodgen’s article,” Online autonomy: Cyber charter schools” (2003) discusses the pros and cons of cyber charter schools. The question “How to corral this new breed without breaking its spirit?” (Bodgen, 2003, p.37) posed in the final sentence of the article sums up the dilemma regarding cyber charter school.
ReplyDeleteI believe that cyber charter schools are appropriate for contemporary society, but I also see some flaws in how these schools operate.
Pros include:
• In cyber schools students may be learning in a more comfortable, natural, familiar environment than inside a physical school building.
• Schooling isn’t as rigid. Students don’t have to follow a bell schedule and sit quietly in a crowded classroom.
• Virtual education offers more opportunity for diverse interactions among students around the world.
• Virtual education costs less to operate than education in a physical space.
• For the most part, students can work at their own pace on their own schedule
Cons include:
• There is no real way of knowing if the student enrolled is completing assignments or someone else.
• The students needs to be self-motivated to keep up with online instruction if not constantly monitored
• The quality of education in a virtual space may vary if there are no set standards
I believe that sites such as BrainPop and Whyville offer great learning potential for students within a student friendly environment.
Additional comments on technology integration in schools:
While watching the YouTube video, “Learning to Change-Changing to Learn”, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tahTKdEUAPk I wasn’t completely shocked to hear that the U.S. Dept. of Commerce ranked education as the lowest industry of IT intensiveness, but it did surprise me that coal mining even surpassed education.
I believe that it is a real tragedy that many schools would rather ban technologies from schools than attempt to integrate them into the curriculum as instructional tools. Not utilizing the latest technologies in schools only furthers the digital divide when some students have access to these technologies at home and others do not. Banning of technologies in schools only furthers the disconnect between home and school. Students lack motivation and lose interest in school because it doesn’t relate to their personal lives (their reality).
Social networking sites that students participate in may actually function as a more meaningful learning environment than schools do today. Social networking sites challenge students to be more social, creative, and innovative than many restrictive school environments do. Social networking sites encourage students to problem solve, develop, and publish their own creations.
In VoiceThread, “Wondering about Web 2.0”, http://voicethread.com/?#q educators discuss whether or not training students to use Word, Excel, and PowerPoint is criminal. I think it is truly a crime if marginal students who lack access to technology aren’t exposed to these basic applications in school. These instructional tools should be available for assignments, but should not be the focus of the assignments.
I agree with Lindsay about Microsoft Office programs. As mentioned on the Voice Thread, these are simply pen and paper for today's society. I think that teaching these programs is completely necessary. They are used almost daily in most situations both insides and outside of the classroom. They are important tools for students to learn and know how to use. I do think it should be included in basic early curriculum so that the web 2.0 tools can be introduced afterwards.
ReplyDeleteAs for the pro's and con's of virtual schools and the reading, James Bodgen’s article,” Online autonomy: Cyber charter schools” (2003) discusses the pros and cons of cyber charter schools. The question “How to corral this new breed without breaking its spirit?” (Bodgen, 2003, p.37), I think it addressed a number of important points.
Some of the Pros, are that geographic boundaries are no longer an issue. Students can be in classes with people all around the world, which can greatly increase social interaction and networking. As Jennifer mentioned, the cost of running a virtual school is much lower then an institution.
Some cons, include that learning must be intrinsically valued for many students. I would think that many younger students may find it hard to be self motivated without the presence of an actual teacher. I also think that the school provides a large amount of social connections, and growth. The social interaction between students in a virtual school is different then interaction in a physical environment.
I believe that technology needs to be incorporated into schools rather then banned and used minimally. What is available to educators is vast. There are many possibilities with these 21st century learners to be using.
I think that virtual worlds provide a more engaging environment for online education. As mentioned in James Bodgen’s (2003) article “Online autonomy: Cyber charter schools,” one of the cons or limitation of cyber school is that students need personal motivation to take the course that somewhat study independently. If the environment and design of the course can be like a video game, which motivate and keep people’s attention, it can be a benefit to cyber school.
ReplyDeleteVirtual environments, as many educators are exploring the potential of them, are found can be very engaging (e.g., Annetta, Klesath, & Holmes, 2008). From my observation and participation in a virtual environment, Second Life, I think that Second Life provides many possibilities for online course design. For example, educators can design a learning environment, which likes a gaming environment, and students can interact with the environment to learn different things. The environment can provide situational setting and students can learn in the “safer” setting.
However, there is still some limitation with Second Life, as the blog post mentioned, Second Life is still in the developing, and it sometimes lags (in my experience, it is a very annoying fact and people would lose their interest after experiencing the lag). Also different kind of learning need different interface. Although now we can open a Web page in Second Life, it is not clickable and cannot show Flash animation. I think the technology will advance through the time, but for some teaching, Web page interface is better than a 3D virtual environment. Educators need to choose the best way to present their course contents.
Second Life is a huge world. It is also like a mirror of real world. For now, it is limited to people over 18, but earlier this year, in an interview, the founder of Second Life mentioned that they are thinking about combine teen Second Life with Second Life. It means, in the future, the use of Second Life in k-12 environment will be possible. But at the same time, there are many issues about the online content, such as adult content, will become challenges for educators.
Annetta, L., Klesath, M., & Holmes, S. (2008). V-Learning: How gaming and avatars are engaging online students. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 4(3). Retrieved March 2, 2008, from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=485&action=article
I think that like any tool that is being considered for educational use, it is important to consider how the real potential for improving learning or making instruction more effective or efficient. Technology does not become educational technology until it is paired with goals for learning. When teachers integrate multimedia technologies with teaching and learning activities to support meaningful educational goals, educational technology is born (Arievitch, 2007).
ReplyDeleteI am still a bit skeptical about the value of virtual learning environments (VLE). One of my goals as an educator is to help my students make the most of their first life. If VLEs are seen to support this goal then I am very wiling to be an early adopter and work with others to decide how to best use the technology in educational settings. For now, I will focus on technologies other than VLEs.
Arievtich, Igor. (2007). An activity theory perspective on educational technology and learning. In Kritt, David & Winegar, Lucien T. (Eds.), Education and technology: Critical
perspectives, possible futures (pp. 49-72). Lanham: Lexington Books.
(In fact, as a student as well as an educator, sometimes it is little bit confusing and annoying to understand every single expression such as 'virtual education', 'online education', 'e-learning', 'cyberlearning', and so on. I think that at first it needs for us to grasp basic concepts of all of them.)
ReplyDeleteFocused on Borden's article, Online autonomy: Cyber charter schools, I would describe my thoughts on the pros and cons of cyber charter schools as follows:
The PROS:
"Multiple services"
1) Multiple curriculum choices even from third-party providers
2) Multiple layers of information with hyperlinks to resources of use such as libraries,reading materials, and websites
3) To multiple students, including homeschoolers
"Interactive"
1) As the Youtube, 'Learning to change-changing to learn' shows, kids are very rich content-developers in today’s social network societies-they are big communicators.
2) The learning environment might offer an opportunity to build a variety of small-unit communities based on students interests even in a cyber charter school.
The CONS:
1) There is no set of agreed upon "standards" for virtual education against which the performance of cyber charter schools can be measured (p. 37)
2) Most schools rely heavily on "parents" to monitor students' activities, provide on-site instructional support, and certify their child's "attendance." (p. 34)
3) It might be happened that teacher evaluate students works in a linear way.
4) It seems to be very difficult to establish standards fit to all of local, regional, national, and global perspectives as a physical distance as cyber charter schools can serve.
Learning experiences available in cyber charter schools remind me of our course, Web 2.0 Pedagogy in some ways.
Agree with Jennifer, probably, we could avoid virtual education such as cyber charter schools in contemporary society. With reading James Bodgen’s article,” Online autonomy: Cyber charter schools” (2003), I thought that it is very meaningful to consider about the Pros and Cons of virtual education. Followings are my opinions on cyber charter school and virtual education
ReplyDeletePros:
1. Matching “global citizenship” in virtual world, cyber charter school could help us to overcome the limitation of nation, race, gender, religion and so on. The meaning of globalization can come true more easily because cyber charter school make us escape from western-centered thought. Even though this is global society, it is undeniable that globalization is rather westernization.
2. Cyber charter school can useful for the handicapped. For example, cyber charter school is helpful for those who could not walk and have trouble to go to school. Or people with an impediment in their speech might feel comfortable in cyber charter school. It is also helpful student who live in remote areas, as James Bodgen writes in the article.(p34)
3. In the economic aspects, cyber charter school could help to save money, because cyber School can save the money to build school and educational facilities, which also solve the problem of short of land.
4. Students can quickly access complex website (p.34) and use enormous information on line.
5. Students could use the time and adjust the amount of study with their own pace and level.
Cons:
1. Cyber charter schools are not always helpful for the handicapped. For example, the blind people could have trouble even though they study in cyber charter school.
2. In the economic aspects, even though cyber school could save the beget for building, the money for cyber school environment such as computer, camera, speaker and video card could become more expensive according to spreading cyber school.
3. Student could spare time to learn to operating computer and new computer program. Therefore it could be a heavy burden for students.
4. The ethics and crime problems such bringing others’ ideas easily and keeping student from accessing violent, sexual abusing environment.
5. Body activity and passive attitude problem. Cyber charter school can make student less move. In addition, student can be more likely to bring some information or ideas from website rather than thinking.
James Bodgen’s article,” Online autonomy: Cyber charter schools” (2003), I would discuss my thoughts that are classified into the pros and cons of cyber charter schools.
ReplyDeleteThe Pros:
1. Students who live all around the world learn in the cyber charter schools. There are no discrimination of color, gender, wealth and poverty, age and nation.
2. Cyber charter schools offer multiple curriculums.
3. Cyber charter schools help to save much money to operate education compared to physical education.
The Cons:
1. There are no set standards in a virtual education.
2. Students spend much money to buy learning materials such as, hardware, software, and telecommunications. Moreover they must check their learning materials regularly for allowing the quality. Moreover, not only students but also Cyber charter schools spend much money to operate for their education system and environment.
3. Parent participates in Cyber School’s curriculum to monitor their child’s activities, provide on-site instructional support, and certify.
I totally agree with the opinion that it is irresponsible and impossible for educators to ignore and bypass the fact that our students are exposed and use technology. I think it is not only students who are exposed to technology, but educators are also surrounded by technology. Most important thing we need to ponder is that, I believe, what technology that is deeply integrated in human life means to human. What do we get from it and what do we lose from it? Cyber schools and e-learning technology are great educational tools. These technologies have great potentials in terms of making more and more people engage in education, communication, and collaboration. However, it is important to be aware that it is not a cure-all to solve all educational problems we are facing today. Many people have addressed it above. I absolutely agree with what are said above. Especially, I think that Minjung made good points about disadvantages of cyber schools is very persuasive. Maybe e-learning strategy costs less in one hand, but, in other hands, it becomes a students’ responsibility to equip proper technology in order to get educated. Whom is e-learning or cyber schooling for? What kind of benefits could be achieved from it?
ReplyDeleteI think there was Web 2.0 pedagogical success in using existing VoiceThread, the CyberSchool article, and blogspot to bring these together in a class discussion, mostly on the globalvirtual.blogspot. The article, blogspot, and voicethread all had a pattern in common. They set up a pattern of considering pros and cons, which is an open-ended reflective and evaluative way to share and critique perspectives about technology in art education. Jennifer's statement is important to consider in idealizing the f2f learning situation: "Social networking sites that students participate in may actually function as a more meaningful learning environment than schools do today." In the process of pros and cons of technology in education, the pros and cons of school confined by walls and marked bodies (marked by race, gender, poverty, sexual orientation, dis/different abilities, etc.) arises. I find a long-standing debate or argument on whether skills and then conceptual application is taught together or skills and then ideas in Ashley's post, "They are important tools for students to learn and know how to use. I do think it should be included in basic early curriculum so that the web 2.0 tools can be introduced afterwards." In reference to Min Jung's comments, I respectively don't agree that there is more body movement in a physical classroom, compared to learning via cyberschool in which one has freedom and hopefully assignments that involve moving around and in the world (virtual with full body interfacing and physical). Also, to consider another con in Min Jung's post differently, with text readers of visuals and other texts and voice functionality, those experiencing visually impaired probably find a more inclusive learning environment in cyberschool that mainstreamed schools. When a student brings ideas from research, whether from the Internet, life experiences, books, tv, or wherever, this is not the antithesis of thinking. I do not agree that it should be or will be the student's responsibility to pay for the technology needed for cyberschool. Some schools already provide laptops to students, why not a city provide Internet access to all learning sites, whether homes or public gathering places?
ReplyDelete