I see a news about VR in college education that I would like to share with you:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/harvards_virtual_education_experiment_in_second_life
I like that the comparison between Second Life and normal distance education and text-based discussion.
I will not write too much now so that I won't interfere with your perspectives.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Crokpot Tech
In the Crokpot Tech article, the author described many different possibilities to utilize Second Life in learning contexts. For example, training, collaboration, and networking are some possible ways to utilize Second Life. The author also suggested that 3D and anonymity can have positive effects on learning outcomes.
What are some concerns with virtual world training? Transfer should be an important issue. For example, if medical students are trained in virtual world, are they going to be able to transfer the skills in the hospitals or clinics. If not, how can we bridge the training to help transfer?
Language training is interesting when done in virtual world. We know culture and language is closely related. Will the culture in the virtual be the same as the culture in the real-world? If not, what other factors that we should consider when we decide language training in the virtual world.
Virtual world creates a very different networking environment for the people to get together. We know that many people visit the virtual world, such as Second Life, very often. This kind of social networking opportunities are almost impossible for distributed teams without the virtual world.
The 3D aspects of virtual world are something that can be specific in the virtual world environment. The question is how 3D effect interacts with the virtual reality.
Anonymity is another specific characteristic in virtual world. As Deniz suggested that anonymity can help students with specific needs to learn in some environments. However, will anonymity negatively affect other types of students? For example, would a high achieving students, or popular students, behave differently in the virtual world? How can we balance the effects dealing with learning in virtual world.
What are some concerns with virtual world training? Transfer should be an important issue. For example, if medical students are trained in virtual world, are they going to be able to transfer the skills in the hospitals or clinics. If not, how can we bridge the training to help transfer?
Language training is interesting when done in virtual world. We know culture and language is closely related. Will the culture in the virtual be the same as the culture in the real-world? If not, what other factors that we should consider when we decide language training in the virtual world.
Virtual world creates a very different networking environment for the people to get together. We know that many people visit the virtual world, such as Second Life, very often. This kind of social networking opportunities are almost impossible for distributed teams without the virtual world.
The 3D aspects of virtual world are something that can be specific in the virtual world environment. The question is how 3D effect interacts with the virtual reality.
Anonymity is another specific characteristic in virtual world. As Deniz suggested that anonymity can help students with specific needs to learn in some environments. However, will anonymity negatively affect other types of students? For example, would a high achieving students, or popular students, behave differently in the virtual world? How can we balance the effects dealing with learning in virtual world.
Cannon-Bowers & Bowers (2008)
Cannon-Bowers & Bowers (2008) is a very good review piece. It provides some good definitions of game, simulation and virtual reality. They suggested that "the constructions of game and simulation are not orthogonal" (p.318). I agree with that, especially when simulation is defined as a "working representation of reality" (p.318). Game can be a working representation of reality (although it may not have to be). Indeed, many games we play such as SimCity, Monopoly, or even chess, can be seen as some kind of representations of reality.
This article also provided some advantages of using games and simulation. For example, games and simulations can be used to provide practice environments for practice which is too dangerous or too costly to provide. We can also embedded instructional features such as feedback in the games and simulations. The authors also review some empirical literature regarding to the effectiveness of games installations. It is a very good source of references. The authors not only show the positive results of games simulations, but also provided a list of studies which show negative results of SLEs.
Finally, the authors suggested different factors that influence SLE design. For example, learner characteristics such a self-efficacy, goal orientation, spatial ability, and comfort with technology may affect the SLE design. This list of factors may serve as a checklist when we decide SLEs.
This article also provided some advantages of using games and simulation. For example, games and simulations can be used to provide practice environments for practice which is too dangerous or too costly to provide. We can also embedded instructional features such as feedback in the games and simulations. The authors also review some empirical literature regarding to the effectiveness of games installations. It is a very good source of references. The authors not only show the positive results of games simulations, but also provided a list of studies which show negative results of SLEs.
Finally, the authors suggested different factors that influence SLE design. For example, learner characteristics such a self-efficacy, goal orientation, spatial ability, and comfort with technology may affect the SLE design. This list of factors may serve as a checklist when we decide SLEs.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
About Second Life
Hi all,
After yesterday class, probably most of you realize that I am skeptical about the use of virtual reality. I am thinking the same question over and over again: what additional benefit we get from virtual reality than what we can get from other medium such as simulation program, and communication software (e.g. Marratech/Skype). I come up with some answers and I will share in the second part of this message. Now, I first shared my experience in Second Life this morning.
Kathy's presentation suggested that we can visit Morocco in Second Life and I questioned what good about visiting Morocco virtually. We can see picture, watch live video of Morocco over the internet. Deniz suggested that it was the interaction. I guess we can also have some "first hand experience" if we use the virtual reality. So, I went there (I hope I went to the right place). It is a small island. I saw two people: one man (with two guns), and one lady (naming herself sexy something). Then, the lady comes to talk to me. I am scared. You don't talk to stranger (at least it is something I learned in kindergarten), especially in an unfamiliar place. So, I did not response. One thing I learn - there may be some etiqutte in virtual reality. It is important to learn. Also, the general culture is different in virtual world. So, many factors that affect learning may change. For example, gender may have an effect on some learning outcomes (I really don't know, but I guess there may be). Now, we don't even know the lady who talked to me is actually a male or a female. What I would like to say here: if culture matters in learning, now, we have a totally new space with a "new culture". Maybe each island has its own culture. So, culture can be a manipulatable variable in virtual reality. It is something interesting to investigate. Of course, what will happen if you don't have a clue about the new culture. Then, what will happen? I was an example in virtual Morocco. I fled.
Then, I went to the democracy island - as some of you may know, I am a politics junky. So, that is an interesting island for me. It looks like a museum with computer screen that I can click virtually. Information shows up. Actually, some screens direct me to an actual web site with more information. I see the advantage of the feeling of visiting a museum when I was in the virtual world. Even though we can have all the information (such as pictures and video clips) in a web site, we may not able to re-create the feeling of visiting a real museum. For me, I feel motion sickness when I see the screen moving. So, I still prefer a plan web site. It is just my personaly issue.
In conclusion, I think there are real benefit of virtual reality in learning. I think Dawley has started one very good research path - the social persistence. Will the virtual reality help people to immerse in the environment longer and deeper (I already use the word immerse which implies a positive answer)? Cultural effect will be an interesting phenomenon because the culture can be totally different in the virutal world. Also, people can visit one place and then to the next place with a different culture in seconds. How will it affect learning? Of course, the opportunity for interactions in VR is probably positive for learning. However, how can we design the enviornment to foster positive interactions in virtual reality? I am not skeptical about the effect of VR, but I see a lot of unknown (research opportunities). However, my problem with motion sickness may still prevent me to visit the virtual world too much (or at least walking/flying too fast in VR).
After yesterday class, probably most of you realize that I am skeptical about the use of virtual reality. I am thinking the same question over and over again: what additional benefit we get from virtual reality than what we can get from other medium such as simulation program, and communication software (e.g. Marratech/Skype). I come up with some answers and I will share in the second part of this message. Now, I first shared my experience in Second Life this morning.
Kathy's presentation suggested that we can visit Morocco in Second Life and I questioned what good about visiting Morocco virtually. We can see picture, watch live video of Morocco over the internet. Deniz suggested that it was the interaction. I guess we can also have some "first hand experience" if we use the virtual reality. So, I went there (I hope I went to the right place). It is a small island. I saw two people: one man (with two guns), and one lady (naming herself sexy something). Then, the lady comes to talk to me. I am scared. You don't talk to stranger (at least it is something I learned in kindergarten), especially in an unfamiliar place. So, I did not response. One thing I learn - there may be some etiqutte in virtual reality. It is important to learn. Also, the general culture is different in virtual world. So, many factors that affect learning may change. For example, gender may have an effect on some learning outcomes (I really don't know, but I guess there may be). Now, we don't even know the lady who talked to me is actually a male or a female. What I would like to say here: if culture matters in learning, now, we have a totally new space with a "new culture". Maybe each island has its own culture. So, culture can be a manipulatable variable in virtual reality. It is something interesting to investigate. Of course, what will happen if you don't have a clue about the new culture. Then, what will happen? I was an example in virtual Morocco. I fled.
Then, I went to the democracy island - as some of you may know, I am a politics junky. So, that is an interesting island for me. It looks like a museum with computer screen that I can click virtually. Information shows up. Actually, some screens direct me to an actual web site with more information. I see the advantage of the feeling of visiting a museum when I was in the virtual world. Even though we can have all the information (such as pictures and video clips) in a web site, we may not able to re-create the feeling of visiting a real museum. For me, I feel motion sickness when I see the screen moving. So, I still prefer a plan web site. It is just my personaly issue.
In conclusion, I think there are real benefit of virtual reality in learning. I think Dawley has started one very good research path - the social persistence. Will the virtual reality help people to immerse in the environment longer and deeper (I already use the word immerse which implies a positive answer)? Cultural effect will be an interesting phenomenon because the culture can be totally different in the virutal world. Also, people can visit one place and then to the next place with a different culture in seconds. How will it affect learning? Of course, the opportunity for interactions in VR is probably positive for learning. However, how can we design the enviornment to foster positive interactions in virtual reality? I am not skeptical about the effect of VR, but I see a lot of unknown (research opportunities). However, my problem with motion sickness may still prevent me to visit the virtual world too much (or at least walking/flying too fast in VR).
Monday, March 23, 2009
Mark's Alessi/Trollip Ch 9 thoughts
I like that this chapter opens with the fact that these tools are more "uncategorized" but still constructivist. That allowed me to read more "freely" without concern of mentally placing each tool into a specific category. My main thoughts as I read this chapter were: "Wow, this sounds like fun," "I really want to try that," "I'd really like to produce something like that for rainforest ecology in Madagascar," and "How can I used this in class..."
It was also good to see another perspective on "microworlds" (other than the paper we read). This sure does seem like a great tool for online classes (and other settings), but I'm still trying to see the difference between this and virtual reality. Learning tools are also discussed, and I like that they are touted as both assisting with learning AND a type of assessment tool (thought they don't give the details about how to assess or if you're comparing to an expert's tool output). I also appreciated that "dreamweaver" was included in multimedia construction tools. That is, we don't have to build the framework for new tools or even hire people to make us tools; many are already around, and we just have to find creative ways to use them! Have students build (constructivist) webpages or presentations or concept maps using PowerPoint, Adobe Photoshop, etc. Then, the class would consist of teaching the technology (as a tool) in order to get "output" from the student; then it comes down to the assessment of that output (compare to expert model or peer models?).
The second half of the chapter focuses on Open Learning Environments (OLEs)--programs that permit learning in a natural and flexible way. They can accomplish a variety of goals and are used in conjunction with other learning materials (p327). These are supposed to be most useful for the "guiding and practicing" phases of instruction (though can be used for presenting and assessing as well). As the went into examples of OLEs, I couldn't help but think "isn't this just a Wiki" when reading the CSILE section. Anybody else think that? The only difference seemed to be that entries/posts in CSILE had to be labeled as "opinion, fact, question" or other labels.
Overall, this chapter seemed less about theory, and more about some practical tools to try out (that are flexible and don't fit in other categories).
It was also good to see another perspective on "microworlds" (other than the paper we read). This sure does seem like a great tool for online classes (and other settings), but I'm still trying to see the difference between this and virtual reality. Learning tools are also discussed, and I like that they are touted as both assisting with learning AND a type of assessment tool (thought they don't give the details about how to assess or if you're comparing to an expert's tool output). I also appreciated that "dreamweaver" was included in multimedia construction tools. That is, we don't have to build the framework for new tools or even hire people to make us tools; many are already around, and we just have to find creative ways to use them! Have students build (constructivist) webpages or presentations or concept maps using PowerPoint, Adobe Photoshop, etc. Then, the class would consist of teaching the technology (as a tool) in order to get "output" from the student; then it comes down to the assessment of that output (compare to expert model or peer models?).
The second half of the chapter focuses on Open Learning Environments (OLEs)--programs that permit learning in a natural and flexible way. They can accomplish a variety of goals and are used in conjunction with other learning materials (p327). These are supposed to be most useful for the "guiding and practicing" phases of instruction (though can be used for presenting and assessing as well). As the went into examples of OLEs, I couldn't help but think "isn't this just a Wiki" when reading the CSILE section. Anybody else think that? The only difference seemed to be that entries/posts in CSILE had to be labeled as "opinion, fact, question" or other labels.
Overall, this chapter seemed less about theory, and more about some practical tools to try out (that are flexible and don't fit in other categories).
Friday, March 20, 2009
Directed Learning and Open-ended Learning
Alessi (Chap 9) argued that Open-ended learning environment lies between directed learning and open-ended learning. Each forming extreme ends of a continuum.
Sadly, most of higher education classroom instruction falls under directed learning in which the method of instruction are delivered systematically with careful sequencing to elicit correct learner actions. The learning goals are set. This is a very teacher-centered approach where teacher is a sage!!!
In contrast, open-ended learning allows learners to set goals and pursue methods learners deem appropriate and set own problems to solve. therefore, it should be noted that Alessi argued if all aspects of learning have to be open-ended for a progam to be an Open-ended learning environment (OLE), there will be no examples of OLEs.
A more realistic view may be in the middle continuum. In this case, specific problems are assigned to the learners and tools and resources are provided to learners who can select own methods to solve the problems. Additonally, teachers are facilitators who guide the learning process and provide resources to learners. Learners learn from peers, from errors, reflecting-in-action and -on-action. All in all learners own the learning rather than relying solely on teachers for learning to take place.
Sadly, most of higher education classroom instruction falls under directed learning in which the method of instruction are delivered systematically with careful sequencing to elicit correct learner actions. The learning goals are set. This is a very teacher-centered approach where teacher is a sage!!!
In contrast, open-ended learning allows learners to set goals and pursue methods learners deem appropriate and set own problems to solve. therefore, it should be noted that Alessi argued if all aspects of learning have to be open-ended for a progam to be an Open-ended learning environment (OLE), there will be no examples of OLEs.
A more realistic view may be in the middle continuum. In this case, specific problems are assigned to the learners and tools and resources are provided to learners who can select own methods to solve the problems. Additonally, teachers are facilitators who guide the learning process and provide resources to learners. Learners learn from peers, from errors, reflecting-in-action and -on-action. All in all learners own the learning rather than relying solely on teachers for learning to take place.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
McLellan (2004)
This book chapter provides a very good review of many issues related to virtual reality (VR). It starts from historical background and types of VR. Frankly, instead of types of VR, I would like to see the key features of VR. Types of VR can change when technology changes, but the features will be relatively stable. Actually, towards the end of the book chapter, the author mentioned about the realm of experience with two dimensions: participation (active vs. passive), and absorption vs. immersion. Those can be some features of VR. Some other features that I can find are visual effect (3D vs. 2D, dynamic vs. static), interaction with the real world, location, task, feedback from the environment ...
I really like the issues that the author quoted from Fennington and Loge (1992). The four issues are:
(1) How is learning in virtual reality different from that of a traditional educational environment?
(2) What do we know about multisensory learning that will be of value in determining the effectiveness of this technology?
(3) How are learning styles enhanced or changed by VR? and
(4) What kinds of research will be needed to assist instructional designers in developing effective VR learning environments?
These four issues give researchers some research direction. Actually, when I start think about VR, the first question came to my mind was the different between VR and other educational environment. In other words, what additional values VR can give. Frankly, from the papers, most of the benefits are similar to the benefits of simulation.
The author defined VR as " a class of computer-controlled multisensory communication technologies that allow more intuitive interactions with data and involve human senses in new ways." (p.461) I see that VR is special because of it's multisensory communication capability and it involves human senses in new ways. The multisensory communication capability can help people to practice skills in a almost real environment. But, how about new senses? I think some Second Life research also pointed out that the new identity can give students a "new start" that they don't have carry their old labels such as failure, or below average. In addition, I believe the mulitsensory capability should work in some context, but not necessarily in other context. The multisensory capability can sometimes be distraction for the learners. In other words, the sense provided should be relevant to the learning objective.
In the theoretical perspectives, I am interested in the computers-as-threater perspective and experience design perspective. I think both of them can be relevant to game/VR research because experience and engagement seems like two big "selling points" in game/VR. For example, the author quoted from Shadroff (2002) that engagement needs to be significantly different from the surrounding environment and cognitive important or relevant. So, those can be some dimension that we may measure the "engagement" in game/VR. Of course, one assumption is that engagement + good educational design will lead to educational outcomes.
I really like the issues that the author quoted from Fennington and Loge (1992). The four issues are:
(1) How is learning in virtual reality different from that of a traditional educational environment?
(2) What do we know about multisensory learning that will be of value in determining the effectiveness of this technology?
(3) How are learning styles enhanced or changed by VR? and
(4) What kinds of research will be needed to assist instructional designers in developing effective VR learning environments?
These four issues give researchers some research direction. Actually, when I start think about VR, the first question came to my mind was the different between VR and other educational environment. In other words, what additional values VR can give. Frankly, from the papers, most of the benefits are similar to the benefits of simulation.
The author defined VR as " a class of computer-controlled multisensory communication technologies that allow more intuitive interactions with data and involve human senses in new ways." (p.461) I see that VR is special because of it's multisensory communication capability and it involves human senses in new ways. The multisensory communication capability can help people to practice skills in a almost real environment. But, how about new senses? I think some Second Life research also pointed out that the new identity can give students a "new start" that they don't have carry their old labels such as failure, or below average. In addition, I believe the mulitsensory capability should work in some context, but not necessarily in other context. The multisensory capability can sometimes be distraction for the learners. In other words, the sense provided should be relevant to the learning objective.
In the theoretical perspectives, I am interested in the computers-as-threater perspective and experience design perspective. I think both of them can be relevant to game/VR research because experience and engagement seems like two big "selling points" in game/VR. For example, the author quoted from Shadroff (2002) that engagement needs to be significantly different from the surrounding environment and cognitive important or relevant. So, those can be some dimension that we may measure the "engagement" in game/VR. Of course, one assumption is that engagement + good educational design will lead to educational outcomes.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Second Life Preparation
Hi All!
Here are several tasks for you to start play with the Second Life virtual environment. They are really easy and fun.
1. hardware preparation: since this is an online 3D software, plz use a faster computer, or the delay when you are playing will make you very frustrated.
2. Get and account. No matter if you have an account or not, you can click "Log in" to proceed. I believe you know very well how to register in an website. Just one thing to remember, you can only choose your "family name" from a list, rather than come up with one by your self, so don't forget it, or you won't be able to log in.
3. download the client software.
4. to know how to move around (arrow keys), and especially, how to fly! (keep pressing "W" key will let you fly, alt key plus your left key on the mouse will help you change your view.)
5. if you wish, change your facial appearance and clothes. (right click your avatar and left click "appearance")
6. "teleport" to a specific place, for example, to location (128,128,29), and tell me what it is:) It's in the "map" button.
7. find out an island that related to your professional interest. e.g. Mark can tell us a biology island. (see task 8 if you don't know how to search)
8. talk with people in that environment. If you cannot find any, go to "help people island" (click "map" button at the bottom of the screen and type "help people island" in "search" textbox.)
9. have a look in you inventory. make a blow kiss. (It's in the "gestures" folder. I believe you can figure out how to do it:)
10. add me (Toxy Magic) as your friend (by clicking "communicate button at lower left corner")
If you can do these ten things, I believe we will have a wonderful class meeting in SL after spring break. If you cannot, please check the following video to find it out. or you can do google search, it's more direct.
http://trainingvideos.hscs.wmin.ac.uk/second1/index.html
Visit this address for more information
https://support.secondlife.com/ics/support/default.asp?deptID=4417&task=knowledge&folderID=208
Here are several tasks for you to start play with the Second Life virtual environment. They are really easy and fun.
1. hardware preparation: since this is an online 3D software, plz use a faster computer, or the delay when you are playing will make you very frustrated.
2. Get and account. No matter if you have an account or not, you can click "Log in" to proceed. I believe you know very well how to register in an website. Just one thing to remember, you can only choose your "family name" from a list, rather than come up with one by your self, so don't forget it, or you won't be able to log in.
3. download the client software.
4. to know how to move around (arrow keys), and especially, how to fly! (keep pressing "W" key will let you fly, alt key plus your left key on the mouse will help you change your view.)
5. if you wish, change your facial appearance and clothes. (right click your avatar and left click "appearance")
6. "teleport" to a specific place, for example, to location (128,128,29), and tell me what it is:) It's in the "map" button.
7. find out an island that related to your professional interest. e.g. Mark can tell us a biology island. (see task 8 if you don't know how to search)
8. talk with people in that environment. If you cannot find any, go to "help people island" (click "map" button at the bottom of the screen and type "help people island" in "search" textbox.)
9. have a look in you inventory. make a blow kiss. (It's in the "gestures" folder. I believe you can figure out how to do it:)
10. add me (Toxy Magic) as your friend (by clicking "communicate button at lower left corner")
If you can do these ten things, I believe we will have a wonderful class meeting in SL after spring break. If you cannot, please check the following video to find it out. or you can do google search, it's more direct.
http://trainingvideos.hscs.wmin.ac.uk/second1/index.html
Visit this address for more information
https://support.secondlife.com/ics/support/default.asp?deptID=4417&task=knowledge&folderID=208
Monday, March 9, 2009
Rieber's microworlds (2004) by Mark
I think Deniz wants us to think of microworlds and simulations as synonymous, but Reiber seems to try to make some distinctions. For a definition of microworlds, the author uses Clement (1998): "A microworld is a small playground of the mind." That is to say, it is an environment in which students (even very young ones) can make their own programs (e.g. models and simulations). In other words, it is our oft-talked-about "learning by modeling/simulating" (instead of learning by using models/simulations).
After then listing 4 "structural" inclusions of microworlds (1. computational objects that model the mathematical or physical properties of the microworld’s domain; 2. Links to multiple representations of the underlying properties of the model; 3. The ability to combine objects or operations in complex ways; and 4. A set of activities or challenges that are inherent or preprogrammed in the microworld), he states that the real test if something is a microworld is functional. "For an interactive learning environment
to be considered a microworld, a person must “get it” almost immediately—understand a simple aspect of the domain very quickly with the microworld—and then want to explore the domain further with the microworld (Rieber, 1996)."
This means that a something could be a microworld to one student, but not another. Also, it means that simulations/models of various types could be microworlds.
These definitions are best understood with the authors tactic of next presenting several "microworlds" (both in their structure and how they are functionally used as microworlds and not "just" simulations/games/models). To drive this home, on p198 Rieber states that, "Just providing a microworld to students, without the pedagogical underpinnings, should not be expected to lead to learning. The role of the teacher and the resulting classroom practice is crucial here. Microworlds rely on a culture of learning in which students are expected to inquire, test, and justify their understanding. 'Students needs to be actively engaged in the construction and assessment of their understandings by working thoughtfully in challenging and reflective problem contexts' (p29). THIS seems it is true of ANY tool or technology - the instructor must cultivate an environment of learning and encourage students to explore within a structure.
In reading this paper with an eye to simulations, I found this definition interesting: ""...three major design components to an educational simulation [are]: the underlying model, the simulation’s scenario, and the simulation’s instructional overlay (Reigeluth & Schwartz, 1989)." This actually does help clarify the model vs. simulation question I had last week. A simulation is a representation of a model (the scenario and presentation of it).
Rieber's summary (p600) gives a realistic picture of incorporating microworlds into schools: "The educational system needs to change in fairly dramatic ways for the potential of these systems to be realized. Probably the most fundamental change is allowing students adequate time, coupled with providing a master teacher who not only knows the software well, but also is a master of constructivist teaching...." Wish us luck!!
After then listing 4 "structural" inclusions of microworlds (1. computational objects that model the mathematical or physical properties of the microworld’s domain; 2. Links to multiple representations of the underlying properties of the model; 3. The ability to combine objects or operations in complex ways; and 4. A set of activities or challenges that are inherent or preprogrammed in the microworld), he states that the real test if something is a microworld is functional. "For an interactive learning environment
to be considered a microworld, a person must “get it” almost immediately—understand a simple aspect of the domain very quickly with the microworld—and then want to explore the domain further with the microworld (Rieber, 1996)."
This means that a something could be a microworld to one student, but not another. Also, it means that simulations/models of various types could be microworlds.
These definitions are best understood with the authors tactic of next presenting several "microworlds" (both in their structure and how they are functionally used as microworlds and not "just" simulations/games/models). To drive this home, on p198 Rieber states that, "Just providing a microworld to students, without the pedagogical underpinnings, should not be expected to lead to learning. The role of the teacher and the resulting classroom practice is crucial here. Microworlds rely on a culture of learning in which students are expected to inquire, test, and justify their understanding. 'Students needs to be actively engaged in the construction and assessment of their understandings by working thoughtfully in challenging and reflective problem contexts' (p29). THIS seems it is true of ANY tool or technology - the instructor must cultivate an environment of learning and encourage students to explore within a structure.
In reading this paper with an eye to simulations, I found this definition interesting: ""...three major design components to an educational simulation [are]: the underlying model, the simulation’s scenario, and the simulation’s instructional overlay (Reigeluth & Schwartz, 1989)." This actually does help clarify the model vs. simulation question I had last week. A simulation is a representation of a model (the scenario and presentation of it).
Rieber's summary (p600) gives a realistic picture of incorporating microworlds into schools: "The educational system needs to change in fairly dramatic ways for the potential of these systems to be realized. Probably the most fundamental change is allowing students adequate time, coupled with providing a master teacher who not only knows the software well, but also is a master of constructivist teaching...." Wish us luck!!
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Simulation in news
Hi,
When I search for simulation in news, I found quite a lot of simulations are "real life simulation" rather than computer simulation. For example, medical schools use simulation center to simulate the hospital environment: http://gauntlet.ucalgary.ca/story/13278.
One "computer simulation" story, found at http://www.tonawanda-news.com/local/local_story_042225908.html, is about driving safety. I think it is not something new, but the news talk about couple things those are consistent with what we read.
1. This tool provides a safe environment for the learners to practice the "cognitive" skills (of course, there are motor skills involved in driver education) that may not be done without using the technology. For example, it is almost impossible to experienced driving when vision is blur or it is hard to find an animal running in front of student's car when he/she is driving. It is possible to practice it in simulation. Think about the landing on Hudson River "miracle", landing on water is something pilot usually cannot practice, but it is possible with simulation (of course, I assume the real situation can be simulated effectively).
2. Students talk about fidelity in the story. But, what kind of fidelity will improve the "transfer of learning"? For example, is the fidelity of the environment is more important or the fidelity of the feeling of driving, such as wind blowing, is more important?
When I search for simulation in news, I found quite a lot of simulations are "real life simulation" rather than computer simulation. For example, medical schools use simulation center to simulate the hospital environment: http://gauntlet.ucalgary.ca/story/13278.
One "computer simulation" story, found at http://www.tonawanda-news.com/local/local_story_042225908.html, is about driving safety. I think it is not something new, but the news talk about couple things those are consistent with what we read.
1. This tool provides a safe environment for the learners to practice the "cognitive" skills (of course, there are motor skills involved in driver education) that may not be done without using the technology. For example, it is almost impossible to experienced driving when vision is blur or it is hard to find an animal running in front of student's car when he/she is driving. It is possible to practice it in simulation. Think about the landing on Hudson River "miracle", landing on water is something pilot usually cannot practice, but it is possible with simulation (of course, I assume the real situation can be simulated effectively).
2. Students talk about fidelity in the story. But, what kind of fidelity will improve the "transfer of learning"? For example, is the fidelity of the environment is more important or the fidelity of the feeling of driving, such as wind blowing, is more important?
A Glimpse of my Research Interests
Dr. Eseryel, thank you for prescribing this paper. I just like it and love it. Surely, I need to dig more in Alessi's work. Kinda like his non-biased approach and provding implications for instructional design.
After reading Alessi (1999), I kinda able to crave out the edges of my research interests...something relating to complex problem solving, modeling, model-centered instruction, non-modeling in the form of instructional augmentation or scaffolds, simluation embedded within a computer supported learning environment.
The journey is long...more work ahead.
After reading Alessi (1999), I kinda able to crave out the edges of my research interests...something relating to complex problem solving, modeling, model-centered instruction, non-modeling in the form of instructional augmentation or scaffolds, simluation embedded within a computer supported learning environment.
The journey is long...more work ahead.
Relationship Between Simulation methods and Learning goals
According to Alessi (1999), building simulation is a more constrained methodology. This implies that instructional methods drives the learning goal of declarative knowledge (e.g. what is) acquisition. In other words, building simulation is commonly applied to declarative knowledge; resulting in deeper learning.
In the event when the learning goal is the procedural knowledge (e.g. how to) acquisition (more contrained learning goal), it is best to prescribe the method of using simulation instead of building it. In other words, procedural knowledge is almost always addressed by using simulation.
When there is no constrained of the learning goal, using and building simulation can be used for declarative knowledge acquisition.
Also, when there is no constrained on the methodology, using simulation can used for both procedural and declarative knowledge acquisition.
In the event when the learning goal is the procedural knowledge (e.g. how to) acquisition (more contrained learning goal), it is best to prescribe the method of using simulation instead of building it. In other words, procedural knowledge is almost always addressed by using simulation.
When there is no constrained of the learning goal, using and building simulation can be used for declarative knowledge acquisition.
Also, when there is no constrained on the methodology, using simulation can used for both procedural and declarative knowledge acquisition.
Observation from Gibbons (2000) + Alessi (1999)
After reading Gibbons (2000) and Alessi (1999) papers, I have the following observation:
Alessi (1999)'s defintion of simulation is a computer program that has an underlying dynamic model in which learner can interact with the model via Graphic User Interface (GUI) with supports of learning.
Gibbons (2000) provides the bone or the underlying instructional design theory of the model-centered learning. He further advocated the use of instructional augmentation which is essentially support for learning as noted by Alessi.
Alessi (1999) adds flesh to the bone and further elaborates on the by-product of modeling - simulation.
Alessi (1999)'s defintion of simulation is a computer program that has an underlying dynamic model in which learner can interact with the model via Graphic User Interface (GUI) with supports of learning.
Gibbons (2000) provides the bone or the underlying instructional design theory of the model-centered learning. He further advocated the use of instructional augmentation which is essentially support for learning as noted by Alessi.
Alessi (1999) adds flesh to the bone and further elaborates on the by-product of modeling - simulation.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Rieber 2004
I really like the Rieber (2004) chapter about Microworlds. The author provides a clear description of microworlds starting from its historical origin, the Logo's root. although it is not the key purpose of the article, it also address the needs of design-based research, which we will discussed in the future.
I like the section about the characteristics of microworld, which include the structural affordance and the functional characteristis. actually, the functional affordances such as computational objects, multiple representations, combinations of objects, and challanges to solve problems, sounds quite a lot like the characteristics of simulation. However, the functional attributes makes microworld distinct from simulation. If microworld is characterized by its structural affordances, and its functional characteristics, and the structural affordances of microworld are the same as those of the simulations, then, we may say microworld is a subset of simulation.
The author also spend some time to described about the pedagogical approach called constructionism. As the author suggestion, it is a pedagogical apporach. the first thing comes up in my mind is project-based learning where students are constructing something through project. Since it is a pedagogical approach, it is different from constructivism which is an epistemology.
The author also mentioned about the "non-significant findings" in GenScope research. Seems like the non-significant results were rooted from the measurement issues. In other words, the measurement instrument of the learning outcomes from Microworld should not be the traditional paper-and-pencil tests. I agree that the traditional paper-and-pencil tests should not be appropriate for the learning outcomes of microworld. Using learning a language as an example, if someone immerse himself/herself in a new country, and able to speak the langauge reasonably well. Does it mean he/she can perform well in grammar tests? My point is that we should think about appropriate measurement for these new pedagogical approaches. However, can we create an instructment that is equally appropriate for new pedagogical approaches and traditional approaches so that our comparision is bias free? I don't know yet. However, I believe the argument for the 21st century skills is the measurement is not appropriate for 21st century.
I like the section about the characteristics of microworld, which include the structural affordance and the functional characteristis. actually, the functional affordances such as computational objects, multiple representations, combinations of objects, and challanges to solve problems, sounds quite a lot like the characteristics of simulation. However, the functional attributes makes microworld distinct from simulation. If microworld is characterized by its structural affordances, and its functional characteristics, and the structural affordances of microworld are the same as those of the simulations, then, we may say microworld is a subset of simulation.
The author also spend some time to described about the pedagogical approach called constructionism. As the author suggestion, it is a pedagogical apporach. the first thing comes up in my mind is project-based learning where students are constructing something through project. Since it is a pedagogical approach, it is different from constructivism which is an epistemology.
The author also mentioned about the "non-significant findings" in GenScope research. Seems like the non-significant results were rooted from the measurement issues. In other words, the measurement instrument of the learning outcomes from Microworld should not be the traditional paper-and-pencil tests. I agree that the traditional paper-and-pencil tests should not be appropriate for the learning outcomes of microworld. Using learning a language as an example, if someone immerse himself/herself in a new country, and able to speak the langauge reasonably well. Does it mean he/she can perform well in grammar tests? My point is that we should think about appropriate measurement for these new pedagogical approaches. However, can we create an instructment that is equally appropriate for new pedagogical approaches and traditional approaches so that our comparision is bias free? I don't know yet. However, I believe the argument for the 21st century skills is the measurement is not appropriate for 21st century.
Shaffer Chapter Six
In Chapter Six, Shaffer demonstrated the definition of epidemic game by comparing two games: SimCity and Urban Science. The virtual environment that SimCity provides is not authentic, which does not resemble the living environment of the players; and the game doesn’t elicit the educated decisions from the players. As the author said, “Players act as virtual dictators” (Shaffer, 2006). It doesn’t provide the players with sufficient context to gather information or communicate with citizens or officials, nor it provides platform to justify players’ decisions. In contrast to SimCity, Urban Science does provide players with opportunities to think like professionals about the urban planning problems, which are ill-structured complex problems. The players can play in their own cities, which are familiar with them, and make amendment on them by gathering information from videotaped interviews of virtual representatives. Through iPlan, they can predict the effect of their measures and balance their actions. Such activities are not only fun but also thinking-provoking. The author argues that “epistemic games create virtual worlds based on existing professional training using key features as explicit markers rather than designing from scratch based on a set of principles extracted and abstracted from existing practica.” (Shaffer, 2006, p.179) He also emphasizes the importance of coherency: learning takes place only as part of a coherent system (Brown and Campione, 1996).
The author borrowed the concept "third place" to describe the position of epistemic games, which is between formal schooling and more traditional commercial games. This is the place where students and go after school and during vacations. it also create incentives for students to take advanced courses in technical subjects in school and facilitate the kind of thinking and learning that kids need in a changing world. Unlike in conventional schools, the facts, information and theories are learned and remembered because they were needed to play the game. Throughout the book, the author emphasizes that young people learn through epistemic games based on the way professionals train for innovative thinking. And it's important for adults to play computer and video games with their children in order to help them learn.
The author borrowed the concept "third place" to describe the position of epistemic games, which is between formal schooling and more traditional commercial games. This is the place where students and go after school and during vacations. it also create incentives for students to take advanced courses in technical subjects in school and facilitate the kind of thinking and learning that kids need in a changing world. Unlike in conventional schools, the facts, information and theories are learned and remembered because they were needed to play the game. Throughout the book, the author emphasizes that young people learn through epistemic games based on the way professionals train for innovative thinking. And it's important for adults to play computer and video games with their children in order to help them learn.
MCI needs Controls in addition to instructional augmentation
As the essence of MCI is dynamic in nature with added complexity of solving ill-sturctured problems, I did concur with Gibbons on the need to build instructional product regulation factors into MCI.
Accordingly, he proposed instructional augmentation (e.g. learning companion) together with control points such as
1) model versioning controls to monitor the dynamic change of models
2) problem scoping controls to bound the problem space
3) problem step size controls to control the complexity of problem
4) Fading of instructional scaffolds to support learner problem skill acquisition.
and further suggested for design layering - decomposing solution of the design problem into sub-problems offers implications for instructional designers to develop content design languages, classify design problem into its structural types, reuse modular design elements. These are indeed new grounds for me!
Accordingly, he proposed instructional augmentation (e.g. learning companion) together with control points such as
1) model versioning controls to monitor the dynamic change of models
2) problem scoping controls to bound the problem space
3) problem step size controls to control the complexity of problem
4) Fading of instructional scaffolds to support learner problem skill acquisition.
and further suggested for design layering - decomposing solution of the design problem into sub-problems offers implications for instructional designers to develop content design languages, classify design problem into its structural types, reuse modular design elements. These are indeed new grounds for me!
Monday, March 2, 2009
Mark on Shaffer's (2006) chptr 6
Shaffer continues to argue for educational games (i.e. those setup with the proper epistemic frame) as one major way to prepare students to innovate and think in new ways. In this final chapter of his book, he differentiates between popular games (like SimCity) and epistemic games (like Urban Planning). The latter is modeled on the real world--it is in context and includes the feedback that a read city planner would face (instead of the fantasy of SimCity). As in earlier chapters, he certainly seems to make a convincing case by pointing to "interview results" of students (pre- versus post-answers or transfer of knowledge to new scenarios/cases).
In discussing how to form/build epistemic games, the author makes an interesting dichotomy between "reflection-on-action" and "reflection-in-action" of professionals in practica in their fields. Though not much discussion is given to these (p177-178), the author states that "reflection-in-action" occurs over time as "reflection-on-action" is practiced and internalized. This follows the same idea as learning with models and learning by modeling (the latter internalizes it). And, even farther back, to the mental model ideas of Piaget!
Shaffer states to build epistemic games, we must ask:
The most interesting part of this read (and the author knew it, so he put it at the end and ramped up to it!), was his suggesting that epistemic games probably WON'T be played mostly in the classroom. He recognizes the constraints of K-12 education (time, standardized test prep, cost, etc.), so suggest that this type of learning should take place in "third spaces" (other common areas besides school/work and home). He gives hope that farther in the future, school could include this sort of gaming curriculum; but, he seems to think this cultural shift will take quite a while. I would think that progressive schools would run to embrace this. Also, why couldn't higher education take the lead on doing this with our students, since we may not have the same constraints as common schools??
In discussing how to form/build epistemic games, the author makes an interesting dichotomy between "reflection-on-action" and "reflection-in-action" of professionals in practica in their fields. Though not much discussion is given to these (p177-178), the author states that "reflection-in-action" occurs over time as "reflection-on-action" is practiced and internalized. This follows the same idea as learning with models and learning by modeling (the latter internalizes it). And, even farther back, to the mental model ideas of Piaget!
Shaffer states to build epistemic games, we must ask:
- What is worth being able to do in the world?
- Who knows how to do this kind of thing, and how do they learn how to do it?
- How do we make these learning practices available to others?
The most interesting part of this read (and the author knew it, so he put it at the end and ramped up to it!), was his suggesting that epistemic games probably WON'T be played mostly in the classroom. He recognizes the constraints of K-12 education (time, standardized test prep, cost, etc.), so suggest that this type of learning should take place in "third spaces" (other common areas besides school/work and home). He gives hope that farther in the future, school could include this sort of gaming curriculum; but, he seems to think this cultural shift will take quite a while. I would think that progressive schools would run to embrace this. Also, why couldn't higher education take the lead on doing this with our students, since we may not have the same constraints as common schools??
Mark's simulation (Alessi & Trollip 2001) thoughts
I found it...annoying that the authors started this chapter by defining simulations as a "model." Perhaps because we have been reading about models, and I was looking for what was DIFFERENT about this new tool. They go on (p213) to say that "virtual reality" is a type of simulation. Since I had categorized virtual reality as another "discrete" unit in this course, I found this disturbing. Perhaps me thinking of our 4 modules as mutually exclusive is a mistake.
Luckily, the authors exclude "games" from their definition of simulations, and they go on to give concrete examples of several simulations. They present these in the context of their simulation type (which they point out are not distinct categories): they are about something or how to do something simulations. The former includes physical and iterative, while the latter includes procedural and situational.
The physical simulations allow the user to see an object/phenomenon on screen; their example is SimCity...considered a "GAME" in our Shaffer text! Iterative simulations allow users to select an input value then "run" the simulation (this reminds me of our GAME, the Beer Game). Some of the authors' comments about iterative simulations interested me though: the fact that they are sometimes called "scientific discovery learning" and that they are often used to teach concepts like ecology/population dynamics (not easily/directly visible). If this is true, I want to learn more about them.
Procedural simulations appear much like "physical," but the difference is that the focus is on the procedure, not the objects themselves. Again, there is biology application here, as these are used for labs/pre-labs (e.g. virtual dissections). The fourth simulation type, "situational" is classified as a type of procedural simulation; however, instead of learning a set of sequential steps, users explore and can take several paths to a common goal. This often involves role playing.
Although I found these attempts at differentiation in simulation types frustrating, I was pleased to see the authors' list of advantages of simulations compared to reality (p226). They enhance safety, provide "super reality," modify time frames, make events more common for observation, save money, and can present a complex system in more simple parts. They also give evidence that simulations are better than books, lectures, and tutorials (p229) because: they are more motivating, increase transfer of learning, are more efficient, and are more flexible. (I might argue that our "academic assistance" that my department offers can be all of these as well.)
The authors move into an "instructional designer" section of the book. They give a model of learning, then ask us to consider fidelity, delivery mode, instructional strategy, underlying model, building a primary objective into the simulation, giving the learner some control of the simulation, giving clear directions, and giving immediate or delayed learner feedback.
I think I better go back to trying to comprehend modeling...
Luckily, the authors exclude "games" from their definition of simulations, and they go on to give concrete examples of several simulations. They present these in the context of their simulation type (which they point out are not distinct categories): they are about something or how to do something simulations. The former includes physical and iterative, while the latter includes procedural and situational.
The physical simulations allow the user to see an object/phenomenon on screen; their example is SimCity...considered a "GAME" in our Shaffer text! Iterative simulations allow users to select an input value then "run" the simulation (this reminds me of our GAME, the Beer Game). Some of the authors' comments about iterative simulations interested me though: the fact that they are sometimes called "scientific discovery learning" and that they are often used to teach concepts like ecology/population dynamics (not easily/directly visible). If this is true, I want to learn more about them.
Procedural simulations appear much like "physical," but the difference is that the focus is on the procedure, not the objects themselves. Again, there is biology application here, as these are used for labs/pre-labs (e.g. virtual dissections). The fourth simulation type, "situational" is classified as a type of procedural simulation; however, instead of learning a set of sequential steps, users explore and can take several paths to a common goal. This often involves role playing.
Although I found these attempts at differentiation in simulation types frustrating, I was pleased to see the authors' list of advantages of simulations compared to reality (p226). They enhance safety, provide "super reality," modify time frames, make events more common for observation, save money, and can present a complex system in more simple parts. They also give evidence that simulations are better than books, lectures, and tutorials (p229) because: they are more motivating, increase transfer of learning, are more efficient, and are more flexible. (I might argue that our "academic assistance" that my department offers can be all of these as well.)
The authors move into an "instructional designer" section of the book. They give a model of learning, then ask us to consider fidelity, delivery mode, instructional strategy, underlying model, building a primary objective into the simulation, giving the learner some control of the simulation, giving clear directions, and giving immediate or delayed learner feedback.
I think I better go back to trying to comprehend modeling...
Alessi (2000), Alessi & Trollip (2000) & Shaffer (2006)
When I read the Schaffer's chapter, the main question coming up in my mind is the transfer issue. In other words, can learners successfully transfer what they "learned" from the game (or simulation) and transfer their learning to the "real world context". Are the learners only learned declarative knowledge and/or procedural knowledge in simulation? Then, I found some answers in Alessi (2000) & Alessi & Trollip (2000).
First, Schaffer's focus was in game which matches pretty well with using simulation. And, Alessi (2000) suggested, building simulation is more appropriate for problem-solving goals. The goals of using simulation can be either skill performance or skills required interpersonal interactions. In other words, game (or using simulation) should not be treated as a silver bullet. Instead, it has specific advantage for specific instructional goals. Alessi (2000) also addresses other factors such as complexity of the problem, learners' prior knowledge, efficiency of learning, and knowledge type, which has an effect on the choice of simulation.
I really like the model that is depicted figure 7.17 in Alessi & Trollip (2000, p, 235). Again, it answers my question regarding to transfer of learning. The model suggested fidelity, perceived fidelity, motivation, and initial learning are some key factors affecting transfer of learning. Some dimensions of fidelity such as fidelity of presentatation, fidelity of model, fidelity of use actions, and fidelity of time scale, are also given in both Alessi & Trollip (2000) and Alessi (2000) . The authors also suggest using Malone's motivation theory and Keller's motivation theory to enhance motivation. Currently, our research project is trying to come up with a framework to evaluate games. If transfer of learning is the ultimate goal, we may use the model depicted by Alessi & Trollip (2000) as our rubric.
Schaffer (2006) also discussed a concept called "facilitating communities of learners" (I could not locate the exact reference, but I think it is probably in Brown & Campione, 1996, 1998). Schaffer pointed out one key point from Brown & Campione study is that learning ONLY take places as a part of a coherent system, but not getting something from group A, and something from group B on a menu. The idea sounds very convincing. However, what is a coherent system? How can we fit our game/simulatoin discussion into this coherent system?
I feel that Schaffer's (2006) book not only trying to tell us game can be part of the educational solutions, but we also need to think about education differently. We should try to prepare the students to face the challenge in the information age (or whatever age that coming up for them). The question is whether we know enough how to achieve this goal or not? Is not, what are the missing pieces?
First, Schaffer's focus was in game which matches pretty well with using simulation. And, Alessi (2000) suggested, building simulation is more appropriate for problem-solving goals. The goals of using simulation can be either skill performance or skills required interpersonal interactions. In other words, game (or using simulation) should not be treated as a silver bullet. Instead, it has specific advantage for specific instructional goals. Alessi (2000) also addresses other factors such as complexity of the problem, learners' prior knowledge, efficiency of learning, and knowledge type, which has an effect on the choice of simulation.
I really like the model that is depicted figure 7.17 in Alessi & Trollip (2000, p, 235). Again, it answers my question regarding to transfer of learning. The model suggested fidelity, perceived fidelity, motivation, and initial learning are some key factors affecting transfer of learning. Some dimensions of fidelity such as fidelity of presentatation, fidelity of model, fidelity of use actions, and fidelity of time scale, are also given in both Alessi & Trollip (2000) and Alessi (2000) . The authors also suggest using Malone's motivation theory and Keller's motivation theory to enhance motivation. Currently, our research project is trying to come up with a framework to evaluate games. If transfer of learning is the ultimate goal, we may use the model depicted by Alessi & Trollip (2000) as our rubric.
Schaffer (2006) also discussed a concept called "facilitating communities of learners" (I could not locate the exact reference, but I think it is probably in Brown & Campione, 1996, 1998). Schaffer pointed out one key point from Brown & Campione study is that learning ONLY take places as a part of a coherent system, but not getting something from group A, and something from group B on a menu. The idea sounds very convincing. However, what is a coherent system? How can we fit our game/simulatoin discussion into this coherent system?
I feel that Schaffer's (2006) book not only trying to tell us game can be part of the educational solutions, but we also need to think about education differently. We should try to prepare the students to face the challenge in the information age (or whatever age that coming up for them). The question is whether we know enough how to achieve this goal or not? Is not, what are the missing pieces?
Sunday, March 1, 2009
What is the difference between Models of Environments and Models of Systems?
I do understand Models of Systems and its implications but is unclear on Models of Environments. Let me it a try...Models of Environments are bounded by time and spaces, and do not have cause-effect relationships while Models of Systems do. Models of Systems reside within an environment.
E.g. Humans - a Model of Systems can learn within the classroom environment. And it is clear that human cannot be a model of environment. In this case, the classroom is the model of the environment and professor can be the model of expert behavior.
Could anyone provide more insight on the difference, pls?
E.g. Humans - a Model of Systems can learn within the classroom environment. And it is clear that human cannot be a model of environment. In this case, the classroom is the model of the environment and professor can be the model of expert behavior.
Could anyone provide more insight on the difference, pls?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
