This article, "Future Directions for Learning in Virtual Worlds" by Mats Deutschmann and Judith Molka-Danielsen, concludes the book Learning and Teaching in the Virtual World of Second Life and predicts that "by the beginning of 2009 Second Life will be one of the most prominent virtual worlds in education" (187). 

Of course that prediction was made before the former CEO of Linden Lab decided to give 30 percent of the personnel their walking papers in June of this year, and that percentage included every single employee at Linden Lab that was connected to the educational aspect of SL.  Of course, it was a mere 18 days later that the CEO was stepping down and Phillip Rosedale, founder and creator of SL, was taking the helm once more.  What this means for the future of Second Life in general and education specifically is anyone's guess, but many hope it means a return to some core values: one of those would be education.

In the meantime, I am still a firm believer in SL's potential for learning and education.  I also agree with Jane Vella (quoted in this article) when she says, concerning learning, that "we respect life experience and their unique context and offer the task [learning task] as an open question, inviting their reflective response.  Some learning takes place in the mind (cognitive), some in the heart (affective), and some in the muscles (psychomotor)" (qtd. in Deutschmann and Molka-Danielsen 185-86).  The fact is we can do so much more in SL than we can in a brick-and-mortar classroom.  The learning can take place in the mind, the heart, and the muscles when SL is utilized effectively. 

"Sim Creation and Management for Learning Environments" by Judith Molka-Danielsen and Linn-Cecilie Linneman provides basic information for getting your classes started in Second Life (SL).  While I think some of the information is sound advice, much of what I read tonight is already obsolete in many respects, and it is this that I wish to address here.

As I read Molka-Danielsen and Linneman's article, I kept saying to myself "well, that's kind of right, but not really" and herein is where to problem lies.  The authors recommend creating training video's and documentation to help make students' transition into this world smoother and easier, and this is something that I have on my to-do list for my own classes.  Reading this article, however, made me realize what a futile exercise it might really be.  The folks at Linden Labs, the force behind SL, are constantly changing things: it might be a new viewer this week that completely makes your videos obsolete, but there is no telling what it might be next week.

So here is the problem, or the question that I would put to anyone who decides they would like to use SL in their classes: how can we, as instructors, keep up with something that changes so frequently?  How much time can we really invest in creating the training material in the first place, much less keeping up with all of the changes that occur?  This is one of the cost we have to pay to be on the cutting edge of education, and it is one I am willing to pay.  But even I ask myself at times how long I'll be able to keep up with the ever changing world of technology and be effective in what I do?

Yea, yea.... I am continuing to read Learning and Teaching in the Virtual World of Second Life, edited by Judith Molka-Danielsen and Mats Deutschmann.  I should have known when I saw the title of tonight's chapter/article, "Assessing Student Performance" by David Richarson and Judith Molka-Danielsen, that I was not gonna "enjoy" it as I do most things I read about Second Life (SL).  In the words of Cindy Selfe from DMAC, "I'm just not good at it [assessment]."  To be perfectly honest, I don't think anyone is "good" at it.  I believe it is a necessary evil, and anyone who thinks they are good at it is probably someone I would not want to take a class under.

To be fair, I can see how assessment in SL would be a problem for some.  As Richardson and Molka-Danielsen describe it, there are two types of classes in SL: "place of study" and "object of study" (49).  If SL is being used as a place of study, then it is basically a substitute for a regular brick and mortar classroom and the fact that it is SL really has nothing to do with anything.  As an object of study, SL is a main component of the class.  The authors believe that when SL is used as an object of study, like in a composition classroom, then assessment is really nothing new.  I would agree with that.  I often use SL as an experience for students so that they have something to write about, or as a way for them to critique their own real lives.  In this case, assessment is based on the essays they write: nothing new.

So it is when SL is used as a place of study that things become a bit more difficult.  And this is primarily what Richardson and Molka-Danielsen discuss.  They look at ways to assess language classes in SL.  So, if you are considering moving your class into SL as a place of study, and particularly if it is a language class, I would highly recommend you read this article.  But as for me..... not much in it that I was really interested in (or, to put it proper, "in which I was interested"). 

I have been packing all day, but I at least had the forethought to do my reading this morning before I began putting boxes together and stuffing them.  However, I am officially exhausted, so hopefully this post will make sense.

I continued with Learning and Teaching in the Virtual World of Second Life, edited by Judith Molka-Danielsen and Mats Deutschmann and one thing that you might want to know is that all but one of these articles are written by international educators, teaching around the world.  Today, I read Mats Deutschmann and Dott.ssa Luisa Panichi's article entitled "Instructional Design, Teacher Practice and Learning Autonomy."  It surprised me a little that the article was about language learning, but much of what the authors discuss is relevant for any type of class.

Again, tonight's reading validates so much about what I already know about SL and education and things I have had hunches about for a while.  Deutschmann and Panichi argue that you, as a teacher, must "be prepared to change your own mind set as an educator--we think it is fair to say that the use of SL also challenged our own preconceived views of what a language class is all about" (28).  So once again, it is a balancing act between going in with a pedagogical purpose, and being willing to adjust things as the need arises. 

Another issue that arises is the need to allow for socializing in the first couple of class sessions.  The authors call this the "Online Socialisation stage, whereby participants familiarize themselves with each other and their learning environment.  It is also here that the social culture of the community starts being establishes" (31).  Not allowing for this was a major mistake I made in the first classes I taught in SL.  I still find that I have difficulty in allowing enough time for this type of interaction, and I truly believe it is necessary to help students become familiar with the SL environment and each other.

As a final comment, I want to leave you with the authors' words.  A sentiment that I have been arguing for three years now in individual conversations, at conferences, and in articles.  Deutschmann and Panichi believe "that the physical dimension of SL (i.e. that there is movement of a kind) actually brings SL tasks closer to tasks carried out in real classrooms thus restoring the physical and kinesthetic/holistic dimension to learning which is lost in other virtual learning platforms (i.e. in the more conventional video-conferencing tools" (34).  When people ask me "why SL for an online writing center and not skype", this is exactly why.  SL restores a sense of the physical and knesthetic learning dimension.