Successfully reported this slideshow.



Published on

TEACH: Applying 3D To More Effectively And Efficiently TEACH Courses
Engage with a panel of pioneering educators on how they are using 3D technologies to more effectively and efficiently TEACH their courses. The discussion will discuss students’ experiences in engaging in 3D avatar mediated instruction; evidence, empirical and anecdotal, will be shared on effectiveness and/or efficiency of teaching courses via this medium; lessons learned in teaching via this medium that other educators should know.
- Karl Kapp, Assistant Director, Institute for Interactive Technologies, Bloomsburg University (interviewer)
- Dick Riedl, Ph.D., Chairman, Leadership and Educational Studies Department, Appalachian State University
- Sarah "Intellagirl" Robbins, Director of Emerging Technologies, Kelley Executive Partners at Indiana University
- Christopher Keesey, Project Manager, Ohio University
- Mitzi M. Montoya, Ph.D., Zelnak Professor of Marketing Innovation, North Carolina State University

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment


  1. 1. Gold Sponsor
  2. 2. Powering Enterprise Training Learning and Collaboration
  3. 3. TEACH:Applying 3D to more effectively and efficiently teach courses
  4. 4. Introductions: Panel Moderator Karl Kapp, Professor, Instructional Technology. Bloomsburg University, Bloomsburg, PA
  5. 5. Introductions: Panelist Dick Riedl Chair and Professor, Department of Leadership and Educational Studies, Reich College of Education, Appalachian State University
  6. 6. Introductions: Panelist Christopher R. Keesey Project Manager / Marketing and Learning Applications Ohio University Without Boundaries
  7. 7. Introductions: Panelist Sarah Robbins AKA Intellagirl Director of Emerging Technologies at Kelley Executive Partners Bloomington, Indiana Area
  8. 8. Introductions: Panelist Mitzi @ work Mitzi @ play Misty Szondi Mitzi M. Montoya, Ph.D. Zelnak Professor Of Marketing & Innovation Assistant Dean Of Research College Of Management North Carolina State University
  9. 9. Questions  As an educator, what prompted you to look to apply 3D technologies to teach your courses?  What has been your experience in teaching via a 3D technology  What has been your students’ experience in engaging in 3D avatar mediated instruction?
  10. 10. Questions  Do you have any evidence, empirical or anecdotal, you can share with us on the effectiveness and/or efficiency of teaching courses via this medium?  What are the top five lessons you have learned in teaching via this medium that you would want other educators to know?
  11. 11. Questions  What did the administration think about using this technology?  What did other faculty members think about it?  What technical obstacles did you encounter?
  12. 12. • •
  13. 13. Cross-University Project Course Figure 1. Collaborative Environment Student-Student (Project Team- Level) Faculty-Student (Class-Level) Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 Oncourse Class Portal Oncourse Team Project Portal - Announcements - Announcements - E-mail - E-mail Virtual Team Projects: - Resources (documents, URLs etc.) - Resources (documents, URLs etc.) Develop a Business Case for - Chat - Team Chat an Innovation to be Delivered - Wiki - Team Wiki in Second Life Adobe Connect (2D synchronous/Breeze) 3D Virtual Worlds 3D Virtual Worlds Presentations to Second Life (by Linden Lab) Second Life (by Linden Lab) Corporate Project - Student team meetings - Virtual classroom Sponsors - Project-related research - Faculty-student-team meetings - Corporate sponsor-team interactions
  14. 14. SL Collaboration Space
  15. 15. Best vs. Worst Performing Teams Coordination Conveyance 100% 100% 75% 75% Usage Usage 3 Di 3 Di 50% 50% Web 2.0 Web 2.0 25% 25% Web 1.0 Web 1.0 0% 0% Worst Team Best Team Worst Team Best Team Convergence Collaborative Writing Conveyance100% 100% 80% 75% 3 Di 60% Usage Usage 3 Di 50% Web 2.0 40% Web 2.0 Web 1.0 25% Web 1.0 20% Social/Relational 0% 0% 100% Worst Team Best Team Worst Team Best Team 80% 60% Usage 3 Di 40% Web 2.0 Web 1.0 20% 0% Worst Team Best Team
  16. 16. Research Activities • Controlled experiments, field work • Multiple platforms and contexts – SL, Protosphere, Wonderland – Educational, industry Individual Learning/Training Characteristics Requirements ? Virtual Space Characteristics “Affordances” Learning Outcomes/ Performance Network Characteristics Games
  17. 17.
  18. 18. Audience Questions
  19. 19. Gold Sponsor