Virtual Worlds As A Competitive Learning Environment

1,117 views
1,009 views

Published on

Virtual worlds have been characterized as a fancy IRC client which more often than not represents a technology that is as much a barrier to the average user as it is a help. Educators are criticized as much for their lack of imagination and ingenuity in the use of these platforms when lectures and presentations are more often limited to simply being a unique way to present PowerPoint slides. This presentation discusses the reasoning behind why virtual worlds represent a competitive environment for collaborative learning despite these short comings. This discussion uses leadership theory and knowledge emergence as its theoretical framework

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
7 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,117
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
130
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
7
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Virtual Worlds As A Competitive Learning Environment

  1. 1. Kevin Feenan, PMP, MBA SL: Phelan Corrimal Rockcliffe University March 29, 2009
  2. 2. • Vision • Objective • Dialogue • Practice • Context (Ba) • KM Assets • Environment
  3. 3. • Dialogue – Synthesis of Contradictions – Explicit Driven • Practices – Synthesis of Action – Tacit Driven
  4. 4. • quot;The practice, acquired from exemplars, to group situations into similar setsquot; – Kuhn, T. • Defined through problems not solutions • Regrouping of objective forms • Thinking, not translating • Shared context • Shared community
  5. 5. • Rivaly • Suppliers • Buyers • Substitutes • New Entrants • Silos reinforced by technology • Tangible Assets • Horizonal & Vertical Integration Threats
  6. 6. Web 1.0 Web 2.0 • • DoubleClick Google AdSense • • Ofoto Flickr (Social Networks) • • Akamai BitTorrent (P2P) • • mp3.com iPhone • • Britannica Online Wikipedia • • personal websites blogging • • Evite Eventbrite • • domain name speculation search engine optimization • • page views cost per click • • screen scraping web services • • Publishing participation • • content management wikis • • directories (taxonomy) tagging (quot;folksonomyquot;) • • stickiness syndication
  7. 7. Web 1.0 Web 2.0 • Passive Observer • Active Participant • Driven by External Agendas • Driven by Social Narratives • Socialization agenda is controlled by 3rd parties • Internalization is a consequence of competitive rivalry between forces
  8. 8. • Neutral Ground • Social Leveler • Conversation is Main Activity • Accessibility / Accommodation • Regulars / Familars • Lack of Pretension • Playful • A Home Away from Home – rootedness, – feelings of possession, – spiritual regeneration, – feelings of being at ease, and – warmth.
  9. 9. • There is only one virtual world • Avatar = Mental Anatomy • Avatar = Replacement for sensorimotor sytem • Avatar Identification = Consciousness • Changes the relationship with the physical body.
  10. 10. • Rethinking concepts of self within a virtual context • Re-examination of knowledge emergence with focus on practices, not dialogues
  11. 11. • I am my avatar and my avatar is me however I am not bound by any agreements made by my avatar on my behalf. • Fracturing of the concept of self • Internal (actor) / External (agent) personias • Sub-conscious elements are more accessible • By-pass conscious filter mechanisms
  12. 12. • Practices, not dialogues, will define web 3.0 • Socialization is Agent-Centered • Internalization is Actor-Centered • Combination/Externalization are Network- Centered • Individual controls the process • Instructor's role is as a knowledge asset within the network
  13. 13. • Networks of Practice – Not defined by the technology • Knowledge Assets – Increases options • Niche Markets – Combination of Dialogues • Value Proposition – Patterns of increased effectiveness
  14. 14. James, L (2009) University of Hawaii Maslow, A. H. (1954) Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row. Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2005). The theory of the knowledge-creating firm: subjectivity, objectivity and synthesis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(3), pp. 419-436. Oldenburg, R. (1999). The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons and other hangouts at the heart of a community. New York: Marlowe & Company. O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0. Retrieved on November 2, 2007 from http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy - techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: The Free Press Seamon, D. (1979). A Geography of the Lifeworld. New York: St. Martin's Press. Steinkuehler, C., & Williams, D. (2006). Where everybody knows your (screen) name: Online games as “third places”. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communications, 11, pp. 885-909.

×