Bonus level - Having a Second Life

From a personal point of view I find the topics of Second Life, virtual/fantasy worlds and avatars one of the most fascinating that we have touched on so far in this course - yet haven't really covered any of this in this blog so far. There are many features that interest me about Second Life, which probably require an entire semester to cover but hopefully I can at least lay down a few ideas about why I think SL is such a valuable, exciting and perhaps dangerous medium, not just for educators, but also for anyone who communicates with others online.

My initial impression of in-world 'talk' is that there is undoubtedly a significant shift in dynamics when three dimensional graphics are involved, as opposed to a simple SMS system. A 'person' can move around, approach people, fly, and visit things much like we do with our physical bodies. This is a quantum leap from a simple text discussion, like we experience in most online communication, and adds a far more intuitive (tho by no means perfect) dimension to communication. Studies have shown that a significant amount of f2f communication is non-verbal, ie we are very sensitive to body language, and will form assumptions, both consciously and unconsciously, by interpreting how other people occupy physical space. While communication in SL is not nearly as complex as in 'first life' (FL), and text is still the norm, it does appear to be somewhat richer than say email, SMS or other text-based networking sites. Avatars can make fairly complex gestures and actions which add a physical context to any written words - like taking the 'smileys' a great leap forward. Avatars can also make basic sounds, and as audio capabilities increase to the point that people are able to chat via microphones, the depth of communication is likely to increase (though I am not entirely sure how managable it might be having a number of people speaking at the same time - perhaps similar to a FL situation). However, as it stands now, having a 3D virtual space to occupy appears to make communication easier and more engaging than most other online means.[I would be interested to know whether people find it more engaging using SL than live video link-up?]

My next impression is that SL and other virtual worlds invite a whole host of interesting questions in terms of psychology of users, the economics and sociology of the virtual society and the anthropology of virtual cultures. Do these worlds simply offer mindless escapism, or can it be a mentally and emotionally rewarding experience? How is identity constructed? Is there a point where becoming immersed in a virtual world becomes psychologically and socially unsettling for people? And can it lead to deeper self-knowledge and learning? As a starting point, it might be worth considering plain fact that these virtual worlds are instinctively appealing to literally millions of users. Why is this so? In his article Living Digitally: Embodiment in Virtual Worlds (in The Social Life of Avatars, Schroeder ed. 2002), Taylor provides some interesting case studies on this subject, writing that 'some users have even come to identify their avatar as "more them" than their corporeal body'. This I find slightly unsettling, though as one avid SL fan blogged, 'our corporeal body is merely an avatar too. We are simply a vessel of meat and water that carries our tenuous consciousness from place to place'. It seems that existence as an avatar certainly enables people to express themselves, perhaps even in ways they cannot with their corporeal body. As Meg put it, one of Taylors subjects, "I usually change my av [avatar] to suit my moods, or to experiment with others' reactions to different appearances, or to see how different looks affect my own action s and comfort levels". Another subject wrote that her avatar 'absolves (herself) of some of the responsibilitiy of "acting human"'. Many users claim such similar experiences of liberation. One even goes so far as to say, ' "I see being an avatar as sort of a long-term self-exploration and even self-reconfiguration" '.

Gee (2003) relates a similar experience of self-understanding through fantasy game playing, writing that 'a good role-playing video game makes me think new thoughts about what I value and what I do not'. Developing an avatar or in-game alter-ego requires an assessment and recognition of values in out-of-game experience, whether or not the in-game character upholds these values. In Gee's view, participants 'must come to see this virtual identity as their own project in the making, an identity they take on that entails a certain trajectory through time defined by their own values, desires, choices, goals, and actions. This is what creates ownership.' He calls this the 'Self-Knowledge Principle', suggesting that in taking on and playing with identities, making choices that determine the history of a character, and taking risks where real-world consequences are lowered (Erickson's psychosocial moratorium), then 'learners learn not only about the domain but about themselves and their current and potential capacities'. It seems that in spite of limitations of movement, actions and auditory speech, people find that being in a virtual world offers significant freedom of expression and opportunity for in-game and out-of-game self development and identity creation.

Another interesting feature is that life as an avatar can be particularly helpful for people who can struggle to communicate and socialise effectively in f2f settings. There was an interesting study done in Nottingham with people with ASDs (Autism Spectrum Disorders), who found it easier to cope with communication in a virtual avatar-based world, for the following reasons: [1] The user has active control over their participation in the VE; [2] Interaction can take place without face-to-face communication which many people with autism find particularly confusing; [3] The social complexity of the situation and the non-verbal and verbal features of communication can be directly controlled and manipulated; and [4] Interaction takes place within an environment that is safe from potentially negative real world consequences. The research showed that the VE significantly helped people with ASDs in learning social skills, and provides an interesting example of how the unique features of a VE can be exploited for learning. (See www.virart.nott.ac.uk/asi for more info)

While I've only touched on some of the reasons why SL might be engaging for users, when you couple this potential with an increased facilitation of communication, it is clear that SL and other virtual worlds will provide online educators with an extremely valuable medium for teaching. The challenge over the coming years is how to manage and design effective courses, while continuing to explorie the many avenues of teaching and learning that might arise. Watching the NMC's (New Media Consortium) vision of what a virtual campus might look like is like watching a science fiction film. Only this future is likely to be months from now, as opposed to years.

With or without you: pros and cons of online education [2]

And this is the value of online education - that knowledge *can* be imparted and shared to the extent that deep learning occurs. If this didn't already already happen, then online learning simply wouldn't exist at all. While it might be said that f2f learning is best in some situations, it is not always necessary, and may even be at times inferior to online forms depending on the context. Below, I hope to convey that while there might be a linear progression from SMS to f2f embodied interaction in terms of how *personal* the communication is, there tends to be a non-linear scale of *value* for each communication media. As Burbules suggests, "The 'virtual' is not the opposite of the 'real' - it is a medial term, between the real and the artificial or imagined." And likewise, the many methods for online communication do not follow an imaginary line between 'real' and 'virtual'; they simply allow differing qualities of communication, each one with its own unique benefits and disadvantages.




SMS - Asynchronous
Pros: Quick, simple, useful for brief yet important announcements
Cons: Limited in scope of information and emotion that can be conveyed




Email
Pros: Can transmit large amounts of written and image data anywhere in world. Asynchonicity is useful to ensure good quality of message.
Cons: Limited in quality of emotion that can be conveyed. Asynchronicity makes it discussion stilted.




Discussion board - synchronous messaging
Pros: Enables participants to discuss using text in real time. Participants can be located anywhere in world.
Cons: Current connection speeds will cause time lag which can make 'conversations' stilted. Text-only display can make multiple-person discussions somewhat difficult to manage. Limited in conveying nuances of emotion through speech.




Podcast
Pros: Can be listened to at listener's own pace in any location. Good for auditory learners and can be more comfortable than reading large amounts. Reader can bring the subject to life
Cons: No immediate feedback possible. Lacks visual cues. 




Multimedia - Recorded lecture, video presentation, etc.
Pros: Can be viewed at any time in any global location to suit viewer's time and lifestyle. Might contain rich combination of information - i.e. online lecture on archaelogy might contain lecturer speaking, images of a particular site, 3D imaging, sound etc. 
Cons: Difficult to engage a question and answer discussion unless lecture is streamed live with discussion board capability. Not actual person in front of viewer, just a representation.




Avatar
Pros: As with discussion board, but 3D environment makes it easier to cope with multiple people. Some emotions possible to convey. Can display rich multimedia content and provide immediate links to documents, podcasts, etc.
Cons: Time lag and limitations of typing speed makes discussion slower than f2f. As yet no voice-to-voice communication possible (but this may change).




Telephone conference
Pros: Voice can convey nuances of emotion and intention. Real time discussion possible.
Cons: Difficult to manage with multiple participants, arguably more so than plain-text. Lack of facial cues makes it less rich than f2f. Can be off-putting for some.




Video-conferencing
Pros: Real-time audio and visual cues make it possible to convey facial expressions and verbal nuances, things often seen to be main limitations of text-based communication. Participants can be located anywhere (in theory). Possible now to include multiple people, and visual stimuli makes conversation more natural.
Cons: Current connection speeds make images stilted and can be more a distraction than a benefit - this should improve with time. Not quite a physical 3D presence.




Face-to-face
Pros: Most 'natural' - participants can perceive full complement of auditory and visual cues as well as sensing physical presence. Discussion in large numbers is manageable. Teaching is highly personal.
Cons: Real-time situation may make some uncomfortable. Limited by time and location - participants must be in the same room at the same time.




While there may be many more features and media that might be added to this list, it provides a rough summary, and hopefully shows that each method of communication has pros and cons. The ultimate distinction is that f2f communication requires that participants are present in the same place, while all other forms of communication do not. But that doesn't necessarily mean that f2f is best in all situations where people can be together, but if they can't then do then online ed is the next best thing. The argument for non-linearity recognises that f2f *is* best in *some* situations but not necessarily best in *all*, even where same location is possible.




In addition to the pros mentioned above, there are many arguments to suggest that at times, online education can be more beneficial than f2f learning. Burbules highlights three practical benefits that online interactions afford: "Some students speak up more under such circumstances; there is more time to reflect on what one is writing or reading ina an online discussion ... ; students are required to be more independently motivated ...". While he recognises these may equally be viewed as drawbacks, depending on the situation and learner, they may prove beneficial. 




In addition, online education can provide a certain liberation from social and cultural norms and constraints. As Stanford professor Fred Turner writes in *From Counter-Culture to Cyberculture*, online forms of communication can be "decentralised, egalitarian, harmonious and free", where the individual might "finally [be] free to step out outside [the body's] fleshy confines, explore its authentic interests, and find others with whom it might achieve communion". Perhaps a bit excessive, but he hints that with online communication people can be exactly who they want to be without race, age, background, looks, disabilities, etc. coming into play. As Turkle suggests in *Life on Screen* (quoted by Burbules), "the Internet is a zone of enormous creativity and experimentation". People are free to contribute in an environment where comments are taken at face value without common f2f power symbols and structures (such as looks, size, tone of voice, social hierarchies, etc.) in place and effecting outcomes. For some people this might be extremely liberating; and in the context of education, might foster a far more comfortable and effective learning environment.




So while Dreyfus argues that with loss of emodiment follows loss of authenticity and meaning, I agree that in some situations this may be the case, especially with younger learners, but that in some situations authenticity can *increase*. For example, users of LinkedIn, a social networking site for business people, report that they are able to form deep relationships very quickly based on detailed information about the other person and text-based communication, without having to go through the rigmarole of location-based meetings. In addition, Dreyfus complains that it is impossible to reach 'mastery level' of understanding when teacher and pupil are in different places. But if he is right, then an online Masters or PhD would be completely impossible. But how can he be right? Many people have successfully completed online programs up to PhD level and they are examined by the same criteria with which non-distance courses are evaluated. He cannot argue that online education is inferior if results prove otherwise.




As Burbules once again writes, "claims about which mode of interaction is 'better' must always be tempered by asking, 'better for whom?'". The multitude of modes of interaction cannot be measured in scales of inferiority/superiority per se, but can be valued with respect to the context and learning requirements. While online interaction may not be as 'personal' as f2f speaking, it cannot be said that it is 'not-real', as communication of value certainly takes place. So even though people may not sit within smelling distance of one another during online communication, we as humans are perfectly capable of constructing an imagined reality to cope with any lack of visual and auditory cues, to the extent that we can learn from each other perfectly well, and sometimes better, depending on the needs and situation of the learner.

With or without you: pros and cons of online education [1]

As Burbules suggests in his arguments, Dreyfus does a good and necessary job dispelling some of the hyperbolic statements which herald online learning as the best thing that's happened to education since the book. Statements like these - such as Perelman's (School's out, 1993), 'we have the technology today to enable virtually anyone who is not severely handcappd to learn anything, at a 'grade A' level, anywhere, anytime.' - do nothing to advance our appreciation of online learning, and if anything can actually damage its popularity. But there is a danger of throwing the virtual baby out with the bathwater. The key issue is this: online communication and distance learning exists; and the key question we must ask ourselves, as Burbules puts it, is '*where* and *how* can these technologies be used to support particular educational purposes, and where can they not be?'. It is this question that I hope to address here.




I will first explore the latter part of the question - where shouldn't online systems be used in education? There are immediately obvious situations where online learning is inappropriate and inadequate. For anything which involves kinaesthetic learning, such as sport, surgery or laboratory tasks for example, it is likely to be extremely difficult to learn these motor tasks without guidance from a teacher being present. While people might be able to learn knowledge related to such fields online, the impracticalities of watching a screen while attempting to carry out these tasks makes life difficult for the learner, and is a poor replacement for the real thing.




Another area where I feel that online systems are inadequate is when f2f social interaction with other learners is a key feature of educational purpose. For example, in primary and secondary education it is surely vital that students learn how to interact with each other, and to suggest that all children should stay at home and log-in for all lessons would be madness. Advocates of home-learning may beg to differ, as might pupils who are being bullied or who are uncomfortable in the school environment, in which case online learning may provide a suitable alternative some of the time. But on the whole it is generally accepted that children ought to be taught in groups, as this helps foster the ability to form healthy social relationships.




This raises the question as to whether this argument follows for undergraduate and FE, where the transferrable skills that students gain from this physical learning community might be as important as any knowledge gained. I asked a member of the LEA of the Western Isles of Scotland whether e-learning might be valuable for isolated communities such as his, and he swiftly replied that for the island's young people, it was vital that they left the islands to go to college/uni to meet others and see the world; for older people this was not so necessary. It seems that even at undergrad level, except in exceptional circumstances where it might be impossible, it is important that students come together physically, as forming relationships and learning to live among other people forms an integral part of the overall learning experience. [This is not to say that some elements of the undergrad course might be done online - see below - but simply that it should not compromise the value of students coming together to socialise and learn vital life skills.] 




So what does that leave us: postgraduate learning, adult education and business training. Within these areas, it can be taken for granted that learners do not require the secondary social benefits that group education can have. In these situations, there may be times when online teaching is inferior to f2f, but there will also be many times when benefits far outweigh any negatives.

Feenberg: Anxieties and pitfalls during CMC

Feenberg raises some interesting observations about the nature of CMC: that 'phatic' signs are bybassed; that responses and even silences can amplify social insecurities; that online identity is somehow removed from the world; and that communication requires 'absorbtion'. His later suggestions for effective moderation seem to offer a way to minimise these apparent risks and hazards involved in CMC. It is certainly insightful at highlighting the potential pitfalls involved in CMC but i have some issues with his arguments.



First of all, I get a strong sense that his concern about insecurities is itself over-amplified, and that either I am just insensitive, or the product of an e-literate younger generation (or both), but I would suggest that CMC is, if anything, anxiety-REDUCING, rather than -inducing. This is mainly due to the lack of visual and aural stimuli in CMC - as a result participants will judge each other (and themselves) solely on words, nothing else, hence cutting out many things to be anxious about. Admittedly people may become anxious if they feel they are unable to match the standard of prose and content contributed by the group, but this would be the same in a f2f context. In a CMC environment, participants will not become anxious about how they look, how they sound, whether they're too old or young or how they dress. They are also less likely to feel obliged to conform to social heirarchies.



Secondly, far from being 'distanced from the world and itself', the online of identity of a participant is in my view no less 'authentic' or 'real' than in a f2f setting. The medium of self-expression is different, but the person is not. Take for example, a person using sign language - the medium for communication differs from speech, but the medium allows for no less of an expression of selfhood than spoken speech. Similarly, when a person uses written language to present themselves, an identity of sorts is formed, on which others form judgements based on vocabulary, content, style etc, and though different to one formed using visual or auditory cues, is an identity that is no less valid.



Thirdly, I am not entirely convinced that the goal of CMC is or should be 'to prolong the game and avoid making the last move'. It may be argued that 'absorption', or the practice of 'communicating something AND evoking participation', makes for an engaging discussion experience, but this could be said of any medium of communication, be it CMC, speaking, or even sign language. Feenberg has in my view, not really presented any aspect of communication that is consigned solely to CMC.



That's enough gripes. And so on a positive note, I think his suggestions for effective moderation are useful, particularly his view that in CMC the moderator should be more prescriptive than s/he may be in a f2f setting. I would also add that the moderator plays a vital role in keeping the focus of the discussion on task. It seems from the short experience I've had so far in this sychronous environment that it can be easy to get side-tracked - though whether this likelihood is any greater than in 'real life' I've yet to decide.