Virtual Worlds in Education Velon 15.03.2011
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Virtual Worlds in Education Velon 15.03.2011

on

  • 439 views

Lectoraat ICT en Onderwijsinnovatie Hogeschool Windesheim Zwolle - Op 15 maart 2011 hield Wim Trooster op het Velon-congres een presentatie over zijn onderzoek naar de didactische meerwaarde van het ...

Lectoraat ICT en Onderwijsinnovatie Hogeschool Windesheim Zwolle - Op 15 maart 2011 hield Wim Trooster op het Velon-congres een presentatie over zijn onderzoek naar de didactische meerwaarde van het gebruik van virtuele werelden in het onderwijs.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
439
Views on SlideShare
439
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Virtual Worlds in Education Velon 15.03.2011 Presentation Transcript

  • 1. How to UseVirtual Worlds in Education Presentation at: Velon Congres 2011 Location: NH Leeuwenhorst, Noordwijkerhout Datum: 15-03-2011 A.P.J.Breedveld Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, Zwolle Dr. W.J.Trooster SURF, Utrecht The Netherlands
  • 2. Program Survey Use of Virtual Worlds (in Education) Demonstration Use of Second Life in Education Discussion
  • 3. Definition Virtual World (3D) persistent and audiovisual (online) environment Where several users “are” simultaneously Using a (3D) representation of a character/ avatar Building this environment to some extent Bartle R. (2003) Designing Virtual Worlds,. Thousand Oaks California, New Riders Publishing
  • 4. 3 Impressions: What are Virtual Worlds? Virtual Hospital in Future: “Public Awareness Health Reform” Virtual Education Nurses: “Emergency Room” AOC Helicon: “Horse Care”
  • 5. Context (1) “Relatedness, Control & Competence” Essential for learning process (Self-determination theory Ryan & Deci (2000)) “Relatedness” Leerprestaties (tav mensen) “Control” Intrinsieke DiepgaandKenmerken Features leren (autonomie) motivatie “Competence” Welzijn/ (ik kan het) Minder uitval
  • 6. Context (2)Why are Virtual Worlds relevant for Education? Intrinsic motivation is essential f0r learning Prerequisite for intrinsic motivation are Relatedness, Control, Competence Relatedness / Presence is problem in present Electronic Platforms for Collaborative Learning Virtual Worlds offer Relatedness, Control, Competence
  • 7. Context (3)What is known about Virtual Worlds in Education?  Survey of various types of virtual worlds & their present use (Study Jisc, de Freitas (Nov. 2008)  Which ideas, motives and assumptions play a role before considering (not) to use Second Life in Education (Study Kennisnet, van Schie (Nov. 2008))  Consideration of potential added value of specified learning activities in SL (Study Kennisnet/SURFnet, van Dulm (Jan. 2009) )  Not yet: “Evidence” for Added Value of SL in Education (and conditional factors) from Experiences in Universities & Sec. Vocational Education
  • 8. Study 1Jisc, Nov’08
  • 9. 5 Types of Virtual Worlds Role Play Worlds Social Worlds Working Worlds Training Worlds Mirror Worlds
  • 10. Role Play WorldsWorld of Warcraft
  • 11. Social Worlds Second Life
  • 12. Working WorldsProject Wonderland
  • 13. Training Worlds Olive Platform
  • 14. Mirror WorldsGoogle Earth
  • 15. Study 2Kennisnet, Nov. ‘08
  • 16. SubjectWhich ideas,motives,presumptions play a role when choosing (not) to use Second Life?
  • 17. Study 3Kennisnet/SURFnet, Jan ‘09
  • 18. Subject Where in the curriculum Teachers (MBO/VO, NL)Think they can use the potential of SL
  • 19. Review Hew & Cheung (2010) Hew, K.F. & Cheung, W.S. (2010). Use of three-dimensional (3-D) immersive virtual worldsin K-12 and higher education settings. A review of the research.British Journal of Educational Technology 41(1), 33–55.470 papers on the use of Virtual Worlds 455: opinions, conceptual descriptions, non- emperical descriptions of program implementations, reviews, or not related to Education 15 on single cases (micro level)
  • 20. Problem Missing, at this moment: A survey of - and insight in best practices/bad practices on the use of virtual worlds in Education Risk: Knowledge in this field is reinvented (over & again)
  • 21. Present Study Summer 2009
  • 22. Objective of present StudyTo create new Knowledge : For Teachers and their Managers To make Adequate Decisions To Use (or not to use) Virtual Worlds for Educational Purposes
  • 23. Topics under Study What is the (didactic) added value of SL compared to other media? Which factors (didactic/organisational) determine optimal (sustainable) use of SL
  • 24. Methods (1)Selection of 7 learning activities with potential added value (on the basis of prior studies)Cooperation & Participation: Co-creation = development & presenting + results1. Practicing skills (eg in simulations, role play/iexploring identities)2. Viewing learning content (eg the medium SL, interaction by avatars, simulations/visualisations)3. Building activities4. Organizing Events5. Organizing/building Exhibitions *SL compared with other media like: RL, Blackboard, MSN, e-mail
  • 25. Methods (1)Selection of 7 learning activities with potential added value (on the basis of prior studies)Social networking & using “learning-communities”6. Meeting people as a trigger for learning experiences (eg: learning a foreign language in SL by meeting native speakers)7. Coaching students (Intervision, Supervision, Coaching the Course of the Study) *SL compared with other media like: RL, Blackboard, MSN, e-mail
  • 26. Methods (2)Selection of 12 Educational Settings(in most initiatives more than one SL-activity)University1. University of Maastricht, NL (Programme for Brand Management)2. University of Applied Sciences, Zwolle, NL (Social professional Programme for Cultural Community Development)3. Private Institute (Philosophy Class)4. Thomas Jefferson University, Philidelphia, USA (Programme for OccupationalTherapy)5. Metropolitan University of London, UK (Programme for E-learning Education)6. University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia ((Under)Graduate Programme for Religion Education)7. Technical UniversityTwente, Enschede, NL (Programme for Construction, Engineering & Management)
  • 27. Methods (2)Selection of 11 Educational Settings(in most initiatives more than one SL-activity)Secondary Vocational Education9. Davinci College, Dordrecht, NL (IT-Academy)10. Deltion College, Zwolle, NL (Programme for Interactive Media Design)11. AOC Helicon, Boxtel, NL (Programme for Equestrian Education)12. Alfa College, Groningen, NL (Programme for Multimedia Design)
  • 28. Methods (3) Questionnaire with items on:  Added Value  Didactic factors  Organisational Factors Use of Questionnaire:  In live interview (6x)  In Skype interview (2x)  By e-mail (4x)
  • 29. Conclusions (1)All SL-activities showed clear added value in (at least) 1 initiative
  • 30. Conclusions (2)Grounds of added value: SL motivates students intrinsically  SL facilitates social interaction  Student can direct his/her own learning activities  (?Competence?) Students achieve better learning results: o more profound learning, o more transfer to practice, o more efficiency (less costs), o more pleasure/well-being students
  • 31. Conclusions (2*) “Relatedness, Control & Competence” Essential for learning process (Self-determination theory Ryan & Deci (2000)) “Relatedness” Leerprestaties (tav mensen) “Control” Intrinsieke DiepgaandKenmerken Features (autonomie) motivatie leren “Competence” Welzijn/ (ik kan het) Minder uitval
  • 32. Conclusions (3a)(Nb: te generaliseren)Didactische factoren: Keuze onderwijsactiviteiten in SL (met duidelijke meerwaarde voor (sociale interactie in) SL) Keuze geschikte doelgroep voor SL Investering in adequate didactiek die aansluit bij de onderwijsdoelen (met goede opdrachten, begeleiding, toetsing) Inrichting SL-omgeving aansluitend bij didactisch ontwerp, met periodieke kwaliteitszorg Hantering gedragsregels.
  • 33. Conclusions (3b)Organisatorische factoren: Aansluiting bij het beleid Creatie draagvlak bij management, docenten,en ICT-ondersteuners Beperking van gevreesde risico’s van gebruik van SL (o.a. tijdsinvestering) Investering in deskundigheidsbevordering Afspraken over manier van werken bij de SL- activiteit
  • 34. Conclusions (4)2 underlying parameters discriminating for success 1. Choose activities where SL really has strong/ undeniable added value compared to other media (eg the 7 selected activities in this study) 2. Create commitment (for teachers, students and management (eg PR) a. Make connection to policies b. Choose subgroups of students apt to working with SL c. Minimize risks foreseen with the Use of SL d. Reduce the fear that working with SL is time-consuming
  • 35. Demo
  • 36. Discussie Welke toepassingsmogelijkheden van een virtuele wereld ziet u in de eigen onderwijspraktijk? Is er meerwaarde voor de virtuele wereld daar? Zijn deze toepassingen eenvoudig realiseerbaar binnen de virtuele wereld? Hoe moet didactisch en organisatorisch invulling gegeven worden aan deze toepassingen?