This document discusses using Second Life to support inquiry based learning. It defines inquiry based learning as an approach where student inquiry drives the learning experience. It presents a framework for inquiry based learning that involves students investigating open-ended questions, applying research skills, and building new knowledge. The document describes how activities in Second Life can support different aspects of the inquiry process, such as exploring existing information, pursuing original lines of inquiry, and producing knowledge. However, it notes that Second Life has limitations for locating disciplinary information and may be challenging for novices.

1. Inquiry Based Learning and
Second Life
Sheila Webber
Information School
University of Sheffield
December 2010

2. Introduction
• This draws on a presentation given last month by
Professor Philippa Levy and me. I have acknowledged
her on slides she authored
• Phil was Academic Director of the Centre for Inquiry
Based Learning in the Arts and Social Sciences (a
Centre for Teaching & Learning) and I was a CILASS
Academic Fellow (small % buyout of my time)
• CILASS funded the purchase & year 1
rent (2007/8) on our SL island

3. Structure
• Identify how we view IBL
• Present a framework of IBL for learners derived
from longitudinal research study
• Also have created version of this in 3D in SL
• Identify how activities with first year students fit this
framework
• Discussion about what aspects of IBL can be
supported/ pursued in SL

4. What is IBL?
• A cluster of related pedagogies in which student
inquiry or research drives the experience of learning
and building knowledge
‘inquiry n: the action of seeking, especially (now always) for
truth, knowledge or information concerning something;
search, research, investigation, examination’ (COD)
Philippa Levy

5. Designed around students engaging in
a process of inquiry: they …
• investigate questions & problems that often are
open-ended
• apply the principles and practices of scholarship or
research in their academic or professional area
• explore a knowledge-base actively, critically and
creatively
• participate in building new meaning and knowledge

6. http://www.shef.ac.uk/ibl
for the ‘Sheffield Companion’
and other follow-up resources
6

7. students
communicate students/tutors
and share establish question,
results of problem, theme
their inquiry
students reflect, discuss, students draw on their
critique, analyse, existing knowledge and,
conceptualise, with support, decide on
synthesise, create, the direction and methods
receive feedback of their inquiry
students explore
evidence, interrogate
texts, conduct
experiments etc,
interacting with
information via a
range of sources
Philippa Levy

8. 8
Modes
of IBL
Levy & Petrulis (2012)
Philippa Levy

9. Planning IBL
Students
Learning outcomes
Inquiry theme
Inquiry process
Tasks
Assessments
Information
Spaces
Technologies
Tutoring
Peer-to-peer
Dissemination
From: The Sheffield Companion to IBL

10. Transition and inquiry
“Approaches to supporting transition are linked to improving
preparedness for HE, easing integration into the university
environment - both academically and socially - and
encouraging the development of the independent learner.”
(Whittaker, 2008: 3)
“Curriculum design should have a greater focus on the
interactive dimensions of learning and the social experience
of students, for example working in small groups and more
enquiry-based and project work. It should also provide a
more challenging learning experience to encourage greater
engagement and the development of independent learning
and high-level critical skills.” (Whittaker, 2008: 8).

11. Selected IBL elements: Level 1
BSc Information Management
Learning about interviewing, data
Semester 1
analysis & research ethics
Problem: Is the “Google Data collection and
Webber
gen” really info illiterate? analysis: interview on
(2010)
(Group work/Presentation) critical incident
E-portfolio on IL
W W
e Bibliography on IM topic Report on IM
e
e Semester 2
e
k k
1 Steps in Identify research question, Poster
Support / Cox et al
research carry out mini research session &
supervision/ (2008) 1
process project, group work report
guests 2
exercise
E-portfolio
NB does not cover all elements in teaching, learning & assessment!
Sheila Webber, 2010

12. Use of key technologies
• WebCT: repository for knowledge base,
interim store for knowledge creation,
crude research tool (discussion board),
crude tool for research project
management
• Second Life: site for pursuing new
questions, stimulus to question their own
conceptions, object of research, starting
to be repository for knowledge base
• Web: site(s) of existing knowledge; tools
for collecting data (e.g. surveymonkey)

13. • Facebook: (likely) informal tool for project
management, host for survey instruments, object of
research
• Mobile phones & IM
“Initially we simply handed out phone
numbers and communicated via text
messaging, with some use of instant
messaging conversations…”
(student blog 2008, talking about working on their
assessed mini-research project)

14. Assignment Short lecture and
briefing handout about
Practice interviews
interviewing
in triads (interviewer,
interviewee, observer)
Lecture, exercises,
readings on
information behaviour, Handouts
data collection, ethics Discussions WebCT
Presentations module
Practice interviews
in triads in SL
Student‟s Revised
Assignment interview
schedule FAQs etc
Individual feedback
Research /communication: email,
interviews F2F, SL .
in SL
Email, IM etc used to
communicate with interviewees
Sheila Webber, 2010

15. 15
Sheila Webber, 2010

16. „Identifying‟: Students explore a knowledge-base (KB)
actively in response to questions, problems, scenarios
or lines of inquiry framed by teachers (“what is the
existing answer/response to this question?”) Muinjij native American island
– Exploring: extent of KB in SL depends on
discipline (& chance)
– Information Literacy for SL needed Mansourian‟s
(as for other modes) information
visibility model
– Presenting findings
(whether found in SL or not)
FSU Holocaust
Sheila Webber, 2010

17. „Pursuing‟: Students explore a knowledge-base
actively by pursuing their own questions, problems,
scenarios or lines of inquiry (“what is the existing
answer/response to my question?”)
– Locating existing disciplinary information within SL is
problematic
– May be particularly challenging (even harder for novice
to identify a feasible question)
– Can still be environment for parts of the process
Sheila Webber, 2010

18. „Producing‟: Students explore open questions, problems,
scenarios or lines of inquiry, framed by teachers or others such
as an external „client‟, in interaction with a knowledge-base
(“how can I answer this open question?”)
– Providing problems and questions for inquiry
– Potential for joining research community (but mostly
research students)
– Environment for data collection
– Tools to manipulate data (crude)
– Analysing data through representation
in SL?
– Dissemination
Sheila Webber, 2010

19. Structuring
inquiry
Students observing
“model” structure, to
reflect on/ discuss
in relation to their own inquiry
– 3D model of research steps in Second Life
Students carrying out their own inquiry, but guided
by a structure (i.e. they interact with and populate the
structure)
Sheila Webber, 2010

20. „Authoring‟: Students explore their own open questions, problems,
scenarios or lines of inquiry, in interaction with a knowledge-base
(“how can I answer my open question?”)
– Again, discipline/specialism-specific in terms of whether could
support students in identifying valid research questions/
problems
– If students forming their own questions with significant use of
SL, implies existing SL competence/ knowledge
– Could be particularly useful at certain stages e.g.
• Question formulation (engaging with SL research
community)
• Data collection (just as use Web 2.0 channels like
Facebook)
• Testing emerging results with international
audience
• Dissemination
Sheila Webber, 2010

21. Concluding points
• Framework as means of
– thinking when and why SL can be valuable in IBL e.g. as part
of blended learning
– identifying areas for development
– clarifying course design & approach to T, L & A
• Thinking of students as researchers from level 1
– most research communities in SL focused around postgrad
researchers (not unique to SL!)
– however constructivist/ PBL/ IBL tendencies of SL educators
world seem fertile ground for developing community
Sheila Webber, 2010

22. Sheila Webber
s.webber@shef.ac.uk
Twitter & SL: Sheila Yoshikawa
http://information-literacy.blogspot.com/
http://www.slideshare.net/sheilawebber/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/23396182@N00/
Netvibes: http://www.netvibes.com/sheilawebber

23. References etc.
• Centre for Inquiry Based Learning in the Arts and Social Sciences. (2008)
Inquiry-based Learning: a conceptual framework. Sheffield: CILASS.
http://www.shef.ac.uk/cilass/resources
• Cox, A. et al. (2008) “Inquiry-based learning in the first-year Information
Management curriculum.” Italics, 7 (1), 3-21
• Healey, M. & Jenkins, A. (2009). Developing Undergraduate research and
Enquiry. York: Higher Education Academy.
• Khan, P. and O´Rourke, K. (2005). “Understanding Enquiry-based Learning”,
In: Barrett, T., Mac Labhrainn, I., Fallon, H. (eds), Handbook of Enquiry and
Problem Based Learning. Galway: CELT.
• Levy, P. & Petrulis, R. (2012). How do first-year students experience inquiry
and research, and what are the implications for the practice of inquiry-based
learning? Studies in Higher Education, 37(1).
• Webber, S. (2010) “Investigating modes of student inquiry in Second Life as
part of a blended approach.” International Journal of Virtual and Personal
Learning Environments, 1 (3), 55-70.
• Whittaker, R. (2008) Quality Enhancement Themes: The First Year
Experience: Transition to and during the first year. Glasgow: QAA Scotland
Sheila Webber, 2010