There are times, like now, where I really begin to question the validity of what it is I'm doing. My research into the use of virtual worlds in general and Second Life specifically for writing centers and writing classes is just the tip of my questioning. The resistance I am experiencing from consultants about using this space to conduct sessions has me wondering about my choice of career paths.
I've done the manual labor scene, I've done the service industry scene, I've done the technical scene, and I've done the corporate scene. In each of these there was just something lacking for me. Mainly, the ability of those I often worked with to even consider stepping outside of the box, much less venturing there.
So I decided to come back into academics. A place where I could meet and work with people doing really interesting research and pursue my own interests as well. I hoped to work with people open-minded enough to allow me my ventures outside of the box. This, however, is not always the case.
To be fair, I work with a great group of people from faculty and admin support right on down the line. I love the students I work with both in my classes and in the writing center. But the push to get our Second Life center up and operational has been anything but pleasant for me. I only have a handful, and by handful, I mean a "tiny" handful, that have embraced this idea and that are on board with me in this endeavor. Others are not merely resistant, but down right hostile to the idea. What happened to the desire to learn while in college and to experience new things?
So needless to say, I'm frustrated. Down right depressed at times, but determined to see this to fruition. I may be down, but I am far from out!!!!
The next article, "Learning by Creating Historical Buildings" by Marco Bani et al, discusses the virtues of using Second Life for a multidisciplinary and international project between the Centre for Computing in the Humanities at King's College in London and InfoUma at the University of Pisa.
One of the most interesting quotes from this text admits that they "favored 'skills' over 'knowledge' -- in teaching History. But in the end, we also have reached good outcomes in the field of knowledge, because the remarkable engagement in building and discussing has pushed students to study hard and nearly spontaneously, increasing their attitude to criticize; SL makes them feel at ease in discussions and encourages them to clearly state their thoughts" (131). To me, that is impressive. Skill was favored over knowledge, but knowledge was spontaneously generated through research and discussion.
The project called for the recreation of the leaning tower of Pisa and Galileo's laboratory, complete with some of his tools. This is quite the undertaking, and they are dedicated to following the guidelines as set forth by the London Charter for the recreation of such historical sites.
The point here is that if you give students a project to complete in Second Life, it becomes a form of active learning. To get it right, they have to do the research and learn about what it is they are trying to recreate. The same with Bryan Carter's Harlem Renaissance. In order to give a legitimate representation, the students must learn what it is they are recreating. Not just how it looked either. They have to go deeper to find out the "why."
This article presents one of the most interesting projects I have read about in SL. This, along with Bryan Carter's, really shows the versatility of an environment like Second Life. It is rich in what can be accomplished in virtual worlds in general and SL specifically.
Tonight's post will be short. Why? Because the reading is just not that engaging. I read Lindy McKeown's "Action Learning in a Virtual World," and I was not overly impressed. Maybe the first issue is that I'm not overly involved in Action Learning, or maybe it's that I'm tired of authors making statements that they provide absolutely no evidence for..... not even anecdotal. Perhaps it is because the statements they are making are not directly related to their topic, but why make the statements?
For example (and this will be a long one), McKeown comments that "embodied as an avatar in a virtual world, people get a sense of physical presence. They feel like they are there in the virtual place as opposed to sitting at their computers at their current location. When they meet the other avatars in their group, they get a sense of social presence. They feel like the others are there with them. There is enough willing suspension of disbelief to allow people to have a strong sense of being with the other people allowing them to interact as they would if they were in close physical proximity" (94). The problem here is not that I'm arguing or disagreeing with these statements, but give me one shred of evidence that you have at least witnessed this. I would believe you. For instance, if I made some of these statements, I would back it up with the fact that one night in a class I taught in SL, I asked the students to discuss a topic in their groups via text chat. This did not require the students to do anything other than begin a group chat. Instead, they used their embodied avatars to seek out and move to their other group members so that all of the avies could be grouped together as they had their discussion. I did not tell them to move, they did this because it is what we would naturally do in RL.
So I am getting tired of reading, repeatedly, claims that I wholeheartedly agree with, but of which they provide to substantial proof. If you are making the claims, it must be because you have either witnessed it or read about it. Either way, show me the proof. Nuff said!!!
I can't believe the first of May is already here. This is the official day that I decided I would begin my project of reading at least 260 articles or book chapters in a years time. This means that by April 30 of 2011, I should be at or beyond Project Post 260. For me, this is exciting. This is a journey for me: both a personal and a professional journey. I am not doing this for anyone but myself. However, joining into a conversation with others about things I've read, and hopefully what others suggest I read, will be an added benefit.
With that said, the article that I decided to start with today is Jennifer deWinter and Stephanie Vie's "Press Enter to 'Say': Using Second Life to Teach Critical Media Literacy." Second Life is my area of study, so I thought this was perfect to begin with. I'll start by simply saying that in the margin on the front page I wrote "Seems like most of this article is underlined!! Sign of a good article for me!!!" And it is. I find if I am underlining and writing a lot in an article, then it is one that has engaged me. In the abstract of this article, deWinter and Vie state that they will "argue that students need to develop critical awareness of their own subject formation and their position in new media environments" and they "further contend that composition instructors can look to Second Life . . . as a dynamic text to engage students in questions regarding power, ethics, intellectual property, and community" (313).
I couldn't agree more with these statements. As someone who has used Second Life to teach first year composition, I have witnessed students engaging in these types of dynamics. An SL resident accused three of my students of harassing her, these same students battled with issues of power and control in this world, and others felt marginalized during assignments. I believe using the tool of SL in composition classes can teach students critical skills they will need in life.
But there are some things that deWinter and Vie mention or say that I do not believe they discuss enough or I do not agree with. The first thing is really very minor, but as an immersed resident of SL, I think it is important to point out. They use the words "play" and "player" a few times in conjunction with SL. I think perhaps they make this rhetorical move in order to connect with what James Paul Gee discusses about using video games in education. I never consider myself a player or playing when I log into SL, and I discourage my students from using that language as well. I want my students to treat this environment as another culture. To that end, I often have them keep field notes about the things they witness. If we expect students to treat the environment seriously, even at times of play within the world, I think it is important that they understand it as a different cultural experience.
The other thing that deWinter and Vie touch on briefly but I wish they would have delved into a little more is the risk involved in using SL. The authors note that "instructors must be aware that racism, sexism, and other forms of harassment may be unavoidable; as such, instructors should approach these as teachable moments to help students understand the changes that online environments have wrought on our understandings of privacy and safety" (319). This is all very true. What I think they fail to point out is that this "environment" is no different than taking students into third world countries to perform research, or just down the street. I think if SL is approached as research, and the possibilities discussed, taking students into SL should be not more of a legal issue than taking students to other cultures to learn. Just as we cannot control our students' lives once they leave our brick and mortar classrooms, we cannot control what they do in SL outside of class. That is life. At least they can simply log off if they find themselves threatened in SL. One cannot log out of real life situations.
deWinter and Vie's article has succeeded in validating my own ideas about using SL in the composition classroom. So many things can be explored in this environment that simply cannot be in RL. Want to queer something? Take a walk into SL and queer away. Want to challenge authority? You can do it with little risk. This was the perfect article for me to begin my journey of 260 days of learning.
The article can be found on ScienceDirect but requires a subscription through a library.
|
RSS Feed
