Learning from Online WorldsTeaching in Second Life

Diane CarrMartin Oliver Andrew Burn

London Knowledge Lab Institute of Education

This project is funded by the Eduserv Foundation

Project outline

• Start date June 2007• Duration 12 months• Central questions and key issues…

More details are at the project blog including • Project description• Reports from the project meetings• Details about the first 2 taught sessions… http://learningfromsocialworlds.wordpress.com/

The story so far…‘Game’ diaries (March - present) We discussed our experiences of SL exposure, and

identified some pertinent themes: • Expertise (demonstrating, measuring, performing of…)• Conventions (socially produced)…about expertise,

‘identity’, etiquette, trust…• Learning curves and the SL pain barrier• Credibility, ‘noobs’ and hostility (gatekeeping and

territorialism) • Self presentation and representation - drama and

performativity…• Public spaces, social constructions and ritual spaces

(‘magic circle’)• Voice, access, assumptions and rhetorics…

SL diaries

Explored Second Life MACHINIMA during this period, as a ‘case study’ – so, machinima and …expertise, tools, social practices, education contexts

•Machinima And Media Education in Second Life (Britta’s interview) •Machinima and Education Article now online at the Futurelabs website…

Work in progress…

Exploring the identified ‘key themes’ in relation to the design of our taught sessions (Winter 2007, Spring 2008 terms)

Meanwhile, we continue to exploring these key themes through particular research exercises.

Two pieces of ongoing research…

The PAIN BARRIER exerciseGathering data on the ‘Pain Barrier’ raised additional questions about

methodology…How we define Second Life has ramifications for methodology (this can be

explored through a discussion of ethics…)Raising questions of :‘identity’ ‘human subject research’ ‘discursive subject

position’ vs the ‘psychological subject’, SL as ‘a representation’ - are we ‘studying humans’?

GATEKEEPING – issues of expertise, questions about ‘gatekeeping’

Method: World of Warcraft ‘couples’ interviews - a way of getting insight into how people negotiate identity and expertise in and out of the setting

Significance of WoW in relation to this question: WoW makes the need for expertise explicit in the structuring of the game…SL doesn’t, yet notions of expertise seem more contested (expertise is just as assertively claimed, reputation just as crucial…yet the terms are much vaguer…)

Expertise and gatekeeping in SL

Gatekeeping? Credibility, hostility and expertise

Communities of Practice theory

- not all communities are pleasant - exclusion as identity work

Is there evidence of exclusion?- forum activity as a trace

An example

Martin reads excerpts from Second Life forums to illustrate ‘gate keeping’

Positions self as: A player with the right to choose

Positions the poster as: - Un-american - Stupid and callous - A 2Life prostitute - Having no right to represent the hearing impaired

Positions others as: Spectators to this exchange

Achieves: Consolidation of social position by alienating another in public

Expertise II: Studying couples who play World of Warcraft

Markers of expertise can be elusive- More visible in WoW as often linked to game mechanics- Harder to study social indications or effects of expertise

Many (not all!) social relationships ephemeral/temporary So: We looked for stable social relationships in a

structured setting in order to develop an account of these markers. Hence, we’re interviewing WoW couples.

Separate question to see how or if these are echoed in 2nd Life

WoW interviews

Progress to date: 3.5 couples interviewed (one partner failed to turn up...)Several indications of 'expertise‘ including: Managing resources (items, cash). Managing social

relationships (roleplaying, guilds). Managing risk (shared accounts, in-game protection, language support).

Relationships change as latecomer develops expertise.

Also, a source of tension and conflict

More information about the interviews is online at the project blog…

"Theory grids" as a project output

A way of mapping ideas to evidence

Useful to guide data collection and analysis

Examples of these, and description of how to produce them.

Students can be set tasks that are intended to generate data or experiences suitable for analysis -

For example...

Teaching computer-mediated communication

Fieldwork component in VLE-based module• Range of virtual worlds offered such as SL,

WoW, and text-based…• Task: to explore how people learn through

communication in these contexts

- Register- Get some experience- Document this- Come back and discuss in a forum

Gilly Salmon’s five-step model of e-moderating Descr iptio n/e viden c e Explanat io n for clas s ifying the

exam ple in this way Leve l 1 – access and mo tivation

Leve l 2 – online soci alisat io n

Leve l 3 – informatio n exch ange

Leve l 4 – knowle dg e constru c tio n

Leve l 5 - dev e lopme nt

Learning from Online Worlds; Teaching in Second Life

Diane Carr, Martin Oliver, Andrew Burn at the London Knowledge Lab, IOE

For more information seeOur Project Blog:

http://learningfromsocialworlds.wordpress.com/Or email d.carr@ioe.ac.uk

This project is funded by the Eduserv Foundation