Alternate Reality Learning: Massive Gaming, Virtual Reality, and Simulations.

The use of Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games (MMORPG), virtual worlds and serious games for educational purposes is a controversial topic. Indeed, this kind of Internet-related technologies is the least used in academia according to a survey conducted in 96 universities offering online programs (Eduventures, 2010).

Advocates of using MMOs and virtual worlds for learning argue that these tools promote social learning. For instance, Thomas and Brown (2009) consider both virtual worlds and MMOs as “social systems where people learn how to become part of new, often rapidly shifting institutions and to organize socially and solve problems quickly on a short-term basis” (p. 15). Prensky (2001) identifies several reasons video games in general could be used for learning purposes such as the fact that players can receive immediate feedback; games put learners in the role of decision-makers while addressing different learning styles; games have the potential to provide high levels of motivation and engagement, etc.

In spite of the great enthusiasm of several social constructivists, creationists, and connectivists about using MMOs and virtual worlds for learning, there is a lack of formal studies that provide evidence of the effectiveness and efficiency of using these tools for instructional purposes. Critics of using these tools argue that it usually takes a lot of time for students to actually learn what they supposed to be learning though discovery and trial-and-error. An additional disadvantage is that usually these technologies take a lot of computer resources and bandwidth; furthermore, since the design and development of a new MMO or a virtual world intended to teach a specific content area is very time consuming and expensive, most instructors need to utilize an existing product and adjust it to accomplish their learning objectives.

References:

Eduventures (2010). Trends in Instructional Tool Usage in Online Education Programs, Research Brief, Retrieved October 11, 2010 from https://www1.vtrenz.net/imarkownerfiles/ownerassets/884/SOE-RB_12_Trends%20in%20Instructional%20Tool%20Usage%20in%20Online%20Education%20Programs_3.3.10.pdf

Thomas, D. & Brown, J. S. (2007). Why We Need Virtual Worlds Retrieved October 12 from http://freedomtocreate.org/images/Why%20We%20Need%20Virtual%20Worlds%20%20version2%203.pdf

Interactive and Collaborative Learning

One of the main criticisms of online learning enviroments is the feeling of isolation reported by students and instructors. When students who have taken all their previous courses in a traditional setting switch to an online setting they are exposed to the feeling of lack of peer-to-peer interaction, especially when the online course does not promote it.

Even though there is a plethora of online technologies that allow interaction and collaboration among students, these technologies might not be effective when they are not applied appropriately. For instance, Lee et al. (2006) identify different interactive technologies and report that communication technologies such as email or voice-over-IP are the easiest to use but at the same time they are very limited in promoting teamwork. Thus assigning projects in which the only communication technology is email might not be sufficient for effectively facilitating learning.

Cooperative technologies, according to Lee et al. (2006) include online forums and blogs in which students have some time to reflect upon the content being covered and to elaborate about it. In addition, synchronous technologies such as chats and videoconferencing tools which allow multiple team members to communicate in real time have the potential to promote social cohesion and provide the opportunity to give and receive immediate feedback. For this reason, Park and Bonk (2007) suggest that it is critical to acquire the skills and practical strategies in using both asynchronous and synchronous modes for online learning.

In spite of the multiple current Web 2.0 tools that facilitate peer-to-peer interaction, they might be ineffective if students do not know or not have the skills to work as a team. Instructors should not expect that just by making groups of students and providing them the communication technology they will work and learn effectively as a team. Instead, instructor should consider applying elements of cooperative and collaborative learning, such as group size, group heterogeneity, positive interdependence, group skills, individual accountability, team incentives, social cohesion, etc.

References:

Park, Y. J., & Bonk, C. J. (2007). Is life a Breeze?: A case study for promoting synchronous learning in a blended graduate course.

Lee, S. H., Magjuka, R. J., Liu, X., Bonk, C. J. (2006, June). Interactive technologies for effective collaborative learning.

YouTube, TeacherTube, and the Future of Shared Online Video

Video sharing technologies are among the most recent Web 2.0 technologies. Before the availability of sites like YouTube, it was really difficult to upload video to a third-party server and it was even more difficult to be able to play it. Generally, users had to download the video first and then open it in an appropriate video player. Perhaps one of the main reasons for the lack of services like YouTube was that video files take a lot of space. Indeed before YouTube was created in 2005, most email services like Yahoo or Hotmail were given just about 500MB per free user account. Thus, allowing uploading as many videos as wanted was very welcome by most users. Providing an easy to use interface to upload videos and being able to display the videos right into the web browser as soon as they have been uploaded was a plus which contributed to the success of services like YouTube.

Shared online video services can be used in education in many ways: (a) an instructor/teacher can record herself explaining a specific topic; (b) an instructor can search for educational videos related to the topic being covered and show them to the students; (c) students can create videos either individually or as a team for their peers to watch and critique; (d) instructors can use the videos as anchors for instruction (Bonk, 2008), showing the video at the beginning of the class and having the students reflecting upon it.

A potential disadvantage of using YouTube as part of a class is that it includes ANY type of content, not only educational. When playing a video, YouTube shows a list of other related videos which might not be educational at all and students might be tempted to watch those videos, getting distracted from the topic being covered. A viable alternative is using shared online video services like TeacherTube in which all videos are supposed to be educational.

References: Bonk, C. J. (2008, March). YouTube anchors and enders: The use of shared online video content as a macrocontext for learning. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) 2008 Annual Meeting, New York, NY. http://www.publicationshare.com/SFX7EED.pdf

Wikis, Wikipedia, Wikibooks, and Collaborative Writing

Along with Podcast and Blog applications, Wikis are considered a prominent Web 2.0 technology. From its inception in 1995 by Ward Cunningham, wikis technologies have been intended to facilitate a quick and easy development of a web document. Before wiki technologies were available, web users were only able to read content from web pages but did not have the capability to author pages collaboratively, unless they owned their personal web site. Wikis provided the capability for any web user to create and update web pages.

The first web application to take full advantage of wiki features was Wikipedia, which started in 2001. Wikipedia is thus the most well known wiki application (Konieczny, 2007). Contrary to other web-based encyclopedias, the success of Wikipedia is that anyone can become a contributor, speeding up in this way the process to add new entries to the encyclopedia in practically any language. The inherent features of wikis facilitate collaborative writing so multiple users can be working/editing a Wikipedia entry simultaneously.

Wikibooks are an additional application conducive to using wiki technologies. In Wikibooks, multiple people work together in writing and editing an online book. As in any other wiki technology, it is possible to track the history of revisions and additions done to each section of the Wikibook.

Having students adding a new entry in Wikipedia or writing a chapter for an existing Wikibook can become an empowering activity because students will know that their work is actually contributing to the world’s knowledge, while at the same time, they’re learning to work collaboratively. However, in order to guarantee the quality and accuracy of the postings, instructors might want to play to role of editors.

Reference:Konieczny, P. (2007, January). Wikis and Wikipedia as a teaching tool. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Education, 4(1), 15-34. Retrieved on June 25, 2010, from http://itdl.org/Journal/Jan_07/article02.htm

Connectivism, Social Knowledge, and Participatory Learning

The main idea behind Connectivism is that learning is a network phenomenon, in other words that we, as social beings, learn better when we interact with others than being alone. In some way, we could say that it is similar to Vygotsky’s Social Constructivism theory in the sense that it emphasizes the social context as a key element for cognitive development. For Vygotsky, learning was also a social and collaborative activity; according to this theory the only way a person can go beyond his/her own Zone of Proximal Development is precisely with the help of someone more capable.

Social knowledge and Participatory learning share similar ideas as Social Constructivism and Connectivism. However, in my opinion it seems that Connectivism attempts to go even further in emphasizing the social aspect of learning. For connectivists like George Siemens knowledge does not only exists in individual persons but it also exists in the network itself, in the material world. Connectivism also pays particular attention to the role that technology plays in allowing people to communicate among them. According to Siemens, learning can be aided by socialization and Web 2.0 technology such as wikis, blogs, podcasts, social networks, etc. (Siemens, 2006).

Personally, I consider myself an advocate of social learning. After all, there are hundreds of studies that have proven that collaborative and cooperative strategies, when well applied, promote more learning gains than when studying alone. Some of these studies were conducted by Johnson & Johnson, some others by Slavin, etc. Likewise, I believe that if used properly, Web 2.0 technology could be effective in promoting learning as well.


References:

Siemens, G. (2006). Connectivism: Learning Theory or Pastime for the Self-Amused?. Retrieved October 18, 2010 from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism_self-amused.htm

Open Educational Resources and OpenCourseWare

In my opinion, Open Educational Resources (OER) are the most compelling evidence that the world of learning is truly open. Many academic institutions are embracing the philosophy of knowledge sharing, so instead of keeping their course content confidential and private, they are releasing it to anyone. OpenCourseWare (OCW) was an initiative started by MIT and several other institutions have joined it gradually. According to the MIT’s OCW website (http://ocw.mit.edu/about/ocw-consortium/) in 2008 there were 250 universities that formed part of the OCW consortium.

Language is a critical issue of OERs and OCWs. Even though there are online products that translate automatically from one language to another, the translation is not entirely accurate most of the times. So, it is remarkable that there are organizations comprised mainly of people who volunteer their time and efforts to translating the OERs and OCWs content and to adapt it into a specific culture. One of these organizations is the OpenSource OpenCourseWare Prototype System (OOPS) lead by Lucifer Chu. OOPS is in the process of translating and adapting MIT OpenCourseWare into Chinese.

In spite of people’s good intentions to contribute their time and effort to translating the courseware, there is always the risk of the quality of the translation, especially if they do not master the content area they are trying to translate. Critics of organizations like OOPS attack mainly the quality of the translations, arguing that “no information is better than wrong information”. To help improving the quality of the translation process, organizations should not only depend on the work of volunteers but also should consider hiring professional editors who review the final stages of the process. Having access to content about any topic in your own language is only the first step. A second important step is for other academic institutions to design a plan about how to make use of the content in the most effective way.

The Movement Toward Free and Open Source Software

Coming from a developing country I have learned to appreciate and value the importance of the open source initiative. The current costs and licensing policies to use commercial applications is simply too expensive for many public institutions in developing countries to be able to afford them. Moreover, many software companies are now charging an annual fee for using an application, so instead of being a just one-time payment, institutions must pay every year as long as they want to use it. No wonder that most public academic institutions in Latin America are using a variety of open source software such as Linux, Apache, and Moodle.

Being free is just one of the advantages of open source software. An additional great advantage is that the source code is available to practically anyone, also free of charge. By providing the source code, anyone who has the programming knowledge and skills could contribute to fix some of the existing issues with the application or to add new features in order to keep improving it. Indeed, the quality of several open source applications rivals or even exceeds that of commercial products. For instance, the Apache web server is used by about 55% of more than 200 million websites around the world (http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2010/02/22/february_2010_web_server_survey.html).

Certainly, the open source initiative could be criticize from different points of views, such as:
a) Not all open source programs have sufficient quality.
b) It’s difficult to find good manuals and documentation to use some open source programs.
c) There is no guarantee that a specific open source program will not be deprecated very soon.
d) Companies and programmers should be compensated for their time and effort.
e) It takes longer for open source programs to be released or patched.