This document discusses a study comparing text-based and voice-based communication in Second Life. The study will divide 160 students into groups, with one cohort communicating via text and the other via voice during a discussion task. Instruments will measure expectations, academic motivation, and perceptions. The researchers expect that voice communication will be preferred over text, and that intrinsic motivation will correlate with text-based communication while extrinsic motivation will correlate with voice. Limitations include the descriptive planned analysis and lack of control over face-to-face discussion.

1. Two Options –One Virtual World:
Does it make a difference whether we talk or chat in
SecondLife?
Gwen Noteborn & Martin Rehm
EDiNEB 2010, London

2. What is Second Life (SL)?
•3D Metaverse founded in 2003 by
Linden Lab
•Login via web-application
•Avatars
2

3. Potential of SL
a student-centered immersive virtual
environment that helps to unlock
creative problem solving and offer a
deeper level of collaborative learning
Bignell & Parson (2010)
It is Innovative & Fun!
3

4. Brand your own product
•Brand Management Course
•Personal Care Product
•160 students
•33 groups
•SL
4

5. Maastricht University Campus Island
5

6. 6

9. Bridging the gap between theory and
practice
“ social laboratory where role-playing,
a
simulations, exploration, and
experimentation can be tried out in a
relatively risk-free environment”
(Graves, 2008, p. 50)
9

10. Simulations
•“Real-life”experience
•Behaviour modeling (Bolt, et al., 2001)
•Built-in feedback(Murthy, et al., 2008)
•Synchronous communication (de Freitas, 2008)

11. Perceived Gaps in Current Research
•Findings & evidence remain anecdotal
and descriptive (Livingston & Kemp, 2006)
•Differentiation between text- & voice-
based communication
•Impact of preferences & motivation on
communication patterns

12. Setting
•Brand Management Course
•160 students
•Discussion Task
•Teams of ~ 5 members
•Cohort 1: Text
•Cohort 2: Voice
12

13. Lecture
plenary
Disc
ussi
SL
on T
ask
Cohort 1 Cohort 2
text-based voice-based
Results
plenary

14. Instruments
•Expectations & Goals
(Giesbers, et al., 2009; Rehm, 2009; Rienties, et al., 2006)
•Academic Motivation Scale
(Giesbers, et al., 2009; Rienties, et al., 2008; Vallerand, et al., 1992)
•Perceptions
(Giesbers, et al., 2009; Rehm, 2009; Rienties, et al., 2006)
14

15. Expected Results
•Communication:
–Voice > Text
(Giesbers, et al., 2009)
•Academic Motivation will influence:
–level of communication
–preferred type of communication
è Intrinsic à text-based
Extrinsic à voice-based
15

16. Expected Results (cont.)
•Enthusiastic
•Challenging
•Resembles “ real-life”
•Enjoyable
“ think that the second life project was a great way
I
of applying and ‘ playing around’ with the
knowledge we gained during the course.”
16

17. Limitations & Issues of Concern
•Experiment has not yet taken place
•Chosen parameters
–Other factors more important?
•Focus on descriptive statistics
•Experimental Setup
–“one-shot”
–face-to-face contact cannot be prohibited
17

18. Further Research
•Content Analysis
•Longitudinal data
•Include gestures
•Retention rate
•Perception of Avatars
•…
18

19. Contact Information
Gwen Noteborn Martin Rehm
Researcher Program Manager e-Learning
Educational Research and Development Research Fellow
School of Business and Economics Maastricht Graduate School of Governance
gcm.noteborn@maastrichtuniversity.nl martin.rehm@maastrichtuniversity.nl
19