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.