Week+7

=Week 7: June 14 - June 20=

Designing Immersive Learning Spaces: Pedagogy & Construction Part 1
Now that we have a good overview of how educators from around the world are using Second Life, let's look a little more closely at the pedagogy of immersive learning environments, and specifically, what makes good learning spaces in THIS virtual environment. Different platforms have different affordances, but few virtual worlds offer as many open ended options for novice and amateur content creators as Second Life, and as many opportunities to create **//student-centered pedagogy//**. This week we'll discuss the design of specific types of learning spaces, including role play, self-paced tutorial, and student created activities/projects.

Though most of us have no intention of becoming 3D modelers ourselves, having a basic grounding in construction techniques in a virtual world like Second Life can give us some sense of the effort required to create a virtual learning space. In the second half of the class we will practice our building skills and learn about making objects in Second Life interactive with sample scripts.

__**Second Life Locations**__

University of Manitoba in SL Bowling Green State University's DJ Lounge Ohio State University's Testes Tour University of Cincinnati Student Projects

__**Readings**__

Bronack, Stephen et al. “[|Presence pedagogy: Teaching and learning in a 3D virtual immersive world.]” //International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higer Education// 20.1 (2008): 59-69. Vander Valk, Frank. [|“Identity, power and representation in virtual environments].” //Merlot Journal of Online Learning and Teaching// 4.2 (2008). 14 May 2009 <[|http://jolt.merlot.org/vol4no2/vandervalk0608.pdf>].

__**Assignments**__


 * Reflection**

Forums Post 11: Are you convinced that "presence pedagogy" is an effective approach to using virtual worlds for teaching and learning? What lessons can we take from the authors' experiences in the virtual world that might also apply to "real world" learning? From a critical perspective, what are some likely pitfalls to this approach?

__**Project Work**__

Project/Paper 2: Improving the SLEDDIES Evalutation Matrices

The "Project & Events" matrix used during our first project was created by the SLED community using an open source, collaborative approach. Based on the "strands" or tracks from the 2008 Second Life Education Community Conference (SLEDcc), volunteers chose one of six categories and contributed to the evaluation matrix for that type of project or build, based on their experience as teachers or designers in Second Life. Team leads for each category worked to incorporate the feedback of many participants into a comprehensive evaluation matrix for that topic.


 * SLEDDIES Evalation Rubrics**
 * [|Red: Games & Simulations]
 * [|Orange: Mixed Reality Learning]
 * [|Yellow: Theory, Research, & Practice]
 * [|Green: Diversity & Special Populations]
 * [|Blue: Projects & Events]
 * [|Purple: Tools & Products]

The positive outcome was a set of six evaluation matrices that could be used to systematically evaluate builds and projects in Second Life, a first for the SLED community. Though this was an important milestone, the crowd-sourced method of creating the evaluations also created some problems:
 * Many categories overlap with each other, it isn't always clear which matrix should be used for which project
 * Criteria language might not be clear or easily understood by an evaluator
 * Other types of builds or experiences in Second Life that might be "educational" (an art show or cultural event, for example) may not be covered by the existing categories

Our task is to improve upon this first effort with fresh eyes and from the perspective of end-user evaluators.

OPTION 1: Create a new evaluation matrix for a category of build, event, or experience in Second Life that is not covered by one of the existing matrices. Your matrix should follow the same general aesthetic format, point allocation scheme, and number of criteria per category. Write a 1-2 page instruction guide for your matrix to be used by the evaluator, explaining your choices, specific terms or jargon used in your matrix, or any other information an evaluator might need to know to use the matrix effectively.

OPTION 2: Choose any two of the existing matrices and combine them into a single, more effective evaluation matrix. Improve criteria language that might not be clear to an evaluator, remove confusing criteria or add criteria language that might better capture key features of a build, project, or event. Your matrix should follow the same general aesthetic format, point allocation scheme, and number of criteria per category. Write a 1-2 page instruction guide for your matrix to be used by the evaluator, explaining your choices, specific terms or jargon used in your matrix, or any other information an evaluator might need to know to use the matrix effectively.

Matrix form and instruction guides are **due June 28, 2009 at midnight EST** to fleep.tuque@gmail.com. Final documents should be in either .doc and .xls format OR in Google Doc "Document" and "Spreadsheet" format. Username to invite is fleep513@gmail.com for Google Docs only.