Pros and Cons of Using Second Life as a Learning Technology

          I decided I wanted to experience the Second World as an avatar ("Juleeah Lavender") in order to explore some educational areas, and other parts of the vast Second Life frontier. I decided to use the avatar so I could experience what a student would experience. I needed to do this in order to judge anything about Second Life. I was not impressed when the system crashed, or when the avatar's shoes were not functioning correctly. I especially was not impressed when I was in a public zone, and two female avatars ran around me seemingly after each other, and were using very large pistols in the process. On a positive note, when I was near other Avatars, one or two sent me an IM to let me know they were there to help; these "helpers" were from the company tech teams. After two or three hours, I could actually walk almost straight, and fly without hitting too many buildings. That was a little exhilerating, and actually created a sensation of flying. I could not get some other features to work, which were placed by other participants such as a "touch me" screen to start a hologram feature. Another person had placed some features to buy a "how to make or print" parts of a book. I "teleported" to several educational sites, which had tech tools for teaching. After a few hours, I did become quite tired of trying to learn about how to use the system.

        During the Second World experience, although I was not partaking of a lesson or in a learning situation, I kept thinking that students would have to undergo the same orientation that I did. I kept working in the system because in trying to evaluate the Second World, I did not want to give up too soon because I could be losing a valuable tool for my students. I did not want that to be the case unless I worked hard at learning the program. With just trying to evaluate the Second World in 2-3 days, I am not convinced yet that it is either valuable nor invaluable. My goal is to teach online undergraduate students, not younger students (who have already used Second World for a long time). My goal is not to impose massive frustration upon my students (not to say that our instructor did this to us…we are merely learning about new technological tools). 
         My opinion is that instead of having my students spend time designing an Avatar's many features, learning to move it, transport, buy clothes, get freebies, and so forth, so they could afterward participate in a lesson from me or someone else, I would be better off in using this tool for educating myself as a teacher, which the system provides in some ways. I would also be very skeptical of using Second World for a universally designed learning scenario for any age student: even if a physically challenged person in the real world could walk in Second Life, there are many emotional, physical, and cultural challenges which may be erased temporarily, but re-emerge after logging off Second Life. Are our children mature enough to adapt to this depth of change? I conducted some research and found some pros and cons of Second Life written by Valerie in 2008, which was posted at the Educational Development Centre Blog.
          Cons include a long learning curve, difficulty in managing student behavior and interruptions from the real world, the fact that a monetary cost frequently emerges, communications have not been perfected, increased difficulty in ensuring students take their school work seriously, impaired ability for students to reconnect to their real world, and public areas are "uncouth" or "raunchy" – it is not just a space for education, but one in which both bad and good exist.
          Pros include amazing and successful possibilities for learning through development of virtual activities, world of physical limitations – enabling a diverse and creative set of activities, greater connectivity and engagement in distance education classes, a tool used for entertainment becomes also one of education – meeting students where they are and making learning engaging and enjoyable for them, ability to have access to a virtual classroom in cases when physical teaching is not possible, highly adaptable, user created, and users retain intellectual property to their creations, utilizes experiential learning and caters to different learning methods.
         Mmmmmm….more pros than cons. This must mean there are more positives than negatives! What weight do we assign each pro and con, and who devises those weights? For example, one pro is not equal to one con; in fact, one pro may carry five times the importance than the one con.  I reviewed about 20-25 Second Life videos, and almost all were entitled "Educational". My opinion is that this technology could add some value as a supplement to the curriculum, but only as a supplement. My vote is still out on whether I would accept and implement Second Life material into any age curriculum. My instincts after seeing and experiencing first-hand the virtual environment of Second Life are to suspend using it until I can investigate it much further, and see empirical data supporting it.

Reference: 

Educational Development Centre Blog (2008, February 5). Second life in higher education: Surveying pros and cons. Retrieved May 13, 2010, from http://edc.carleton.ca/blog/index.php/
2008/02/05/second-life-in-higher-education-surveying-pros-and-cons/

Suggestions for Good Academic Writing

As a doctoral learner, discovering professors' expectations for submitted assignments can only be achieved by a thorough knowledge of the university's and professors' writing rudiments.  Doctoral learners' pre-assessment of these rudiments requires an in-depth review of peer-reviewed articles, using references such as the American Psychological Association's (APA) Manual, and other reliable resources.  In addition, gaining and applying such knowledge when writing affords doctoral learners opportunities for introspection as well as intellectual and academic growth as degree requirements are further achieved.   

      This paper presents an analysis of (1) how academic professionals gain insight into good academic writing, (2) common mistakes by academic writers, (3) criticisms against poor academic writing, and (4) solutions for avoiding poor academic writing.  Analyzing and critiquing sources, which elaborate upon good writing mechanics as provided by the APA and other reliable references, creates a standardized across-the-board utility when academic writing is required and produced for evaluation.  Knowledge of common writing mistakes, and how to avoid such mistakes provides writers with the basic and advanced skills required for today's doctoral learners' writing activities.  

Academic Professionals' Identification of Good Academic Writing

           Completing years of post-secondary education, and gaining practice as an academic professional, does not necessarily enable academic professionals and students to have an ability to discern good academic writing.  However, if academic professionals and students supplement reading and writing skills by reference materials such as the 6^th Edition of the American Psychological Association's (APA) Manual (2010), the web sites of The Little Brown Handbook and The Online English Grammar Guide as well as from libraries, and other reliable sources, significant reading and writing expertise is gained.  Furthermore, academic professionals and students who seek resources appraised by peers gain assurance that the material presented is reliable.  However, it is of the utmost importance that when reviewing such material that one impose critical thinking skills, and not assume that what is written and peer-reviewed is necessarily correct.

           For example, Anonymous' (2010) composition recounts examples from the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest, the brain-child of the English Department at San Jose State University sponsoring the contest, which is "a whimsical literary competition that challenges entrants to compose the opening sentence to the worst of all possible novels" (para 6).  While this article is locatable in the ProQuest database, the article is not peer-reviewed nor is Kelly's (1999) or Smith's (1999) articles according to ProQuest.  However, Kelly (1999) notes that Professor Sokal, a New York University physics professor, was "published in a respected journal, Social Text, (which) was thoroughly researched and footnoted, but was essentially nonsense" (para 3).  Professor Sokal (Kelly, 1999) purposely wrote his article as a test for the staff at Social Text to see if his thesis would be challenged, and remarkably, it was not.  While peer-reviewed articles offer academic professionals a means to evaluate good academic writing, academic professionals must frequently evaluate non-peer-reviewed student compositions, which requires the use of expertise attained using other means such as from the APA (2010) as previously mentioned.     

Common Writing Mistakes of Academic Writers

            Academic writers' common writing mistakes include attributes such as dense, "obscure, often incomprehensible writing" (Kelly, 1999, para 2), "jargon-filled" rhetoric (para 11), and "incomprehensible sentence structure" (Smith, 1999, para 1).  In addition, academic writers frequently avoid authenticity while writing because it "requires more courage and more hard work than being educated since it can only be achieved by standing alone from, and by becoming independent of, those surrounding communal voices and texts" (Badley, 2008, p. 364).  Badley (2008) also wrote that "less proficient writers tend to write syntheses by simply borrowing sentences and connecting information from each source, without elaboration and integration" (p. 422).  Badley's (2008) research demonstrated that "When considering top-level (composition) structure, paragraphing, topic sentences and use of conclusion, students’ pre-test written syntheses scarcely met the structural criteria of a good exposition" (p. 434 ). 

Criticisms of Poor Academic Writers

           Smith (1999) wrote that "scholars (are) increasingly making themselves irrelevant" (para 7).  In an attempt to fit ideological agendas, academic writers change the structure of words and sentences, which distorts meaning (Smith, 1999).  Kelly (1999) indicates that a "major factor in tolerance of bad writing has been a lack of hard-nosed editing by academic journals" (para 18).  More up-to-date evaluations of academic writing provides insight about whether improvements in academic writing prevail or not since 1999.  For example, Addison and McGee (2010) wrote that "college faculty are not adequately preparing students for required writing tasks in the private or government sector" (p. 164), and recommend that "an online peer-reviewed journal (be) established that allows for more timely and detailed reports than possible with print publications" (p. 171).  A preponderance for academic writers to make writing mistakes continues as they create "incomprehensible writing and factionalism, resulting even more in their diminishment and incoherence" (Smith, 1999, para 2).

Avoiding Poor Academic Writing

            The focus of good academic writing is well stated by James Cook University (2011): "Good writing is unambiguous. The reader does not have to make a choice about what the writer possibly means" (James Cook University, 2011, para 24), and ambiguousness is avoided by using concrete rather than abstract terms (Australia's James Cook University, 2011).  The James Cook University (2011) summarizes other core principles and characteristics for academic writing.  Core principles include a "reader-centred approach, outlining and drafting, a clear layout, logical presentation of material, pre-emption of reader’s questions, parallel structure, concise writing, precise details and information as well as good grammar, spelling and punctuation" (para 6).  Characteristics of academic writing include that "all statements can be supported by evidence; paragraphs have a single, but developed, theme; paragraphs begin with a theme sentence; (contain) neutral language; omit slang and jargon; avoid pronouns; (have a) judicious use of adjectives; (contain) precise information, verbs and word choice" (James Cook University, 2011, para 9). 

            Addison and McGee (2010) further indicated that college faculty identified "the five most important characteristics of good writing as…organization…analysis data/ideas/arguments, and use of supporting evidence" (p. 166).  Supporting the five characteristics is the systematic step-by-step writing process, which includes prewriting, higher order concerns, lower order concerns, and editing.  By learning and applying proven writing processes, poor academic writing is avoided.

Conclusion

            This paper presented an analysis of (1) how academic professionals gain insight into good academic writing, (2) common mistakes by academic writers, (3) criticisms against poor academic writing, and (4) solutions for avoiding poor academic writing.  Analyzing and critiquing sources, which elaborate upon good writing mechanics as provided by the APA and other reliable references, creates a standardized across-the-board utility when academic writing is required and produced for evaluation.  Knowledge of common writing mistakes, and how to avoid such mistakes provides writers with the basic and advanced skills required for today's doctoral learners' writing activities.  

References:

Addison, J., & McGee, S.J. (2010, September). Writing in high school/writing in college: Research trends and future directions. College Composition and Communication, (62)1, p. 147. Retrieved January 9, 2011, from ProQuest.
        
Anonymous (2010, April 3). Robert Rector: Bad writing gets its just reward. San Gabriel Valley Tribune. Retrieved January 8, 2011, from ProQuest.

American Psychological Association (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association, 6^th Ed. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Badley, G. (2008). Developing (authentic?) academic writers. Quality Assurance in Education, (16), 4, p. 363. Retrieved January 10, 2011, from ProQuest.

James Cook University (2011). What is effective academic writing? Retrieved January 9, 2011, from https://egrs.jcu.edu.au/workshops/

academic-writing-workshops/what-is-effective-academic-writing

 

Kelly, R. (1999, April 8). Bad blood over bad writing: Critics say US academic language has become so convoluted that it is largely incomprehensible to the point where argument is becoming impossible. The Irish Times, p. 15. Retrieved January 8, 2011, from Proquest.

 
Smith, D. (1999, March 7). Academic: When the writing is bad, ideas get lost. Winston - Salem Journal, p. 17. Retrieved January 8, 2011, from ProQuest

Teaching and Learning Paradigms for Successful Online Learning

To effectively achieve successful adult online learning, best practices based upon empirical research must continue to evolve via new paradigms.  Until such time that research is sufficiently conducted and reported, considerations about the most critical paradigms required for successful online teaching and learning for the adult student can be sourced from the opinions in recent literature as presented herein.  The prevailing paradigm includes online teaching and learning practices that places more responsibility upon the learner.

For example, today's online teaching and learning paradigms encompass skills as Dabbagh (2007) explains that include "online learners (who) must be ready to share their work, interact within small and large groups in virtual settings, and collaborate on projects online or otherwise risk isolation in a community growing increasingly dependent on connectivity and interaction" (par. 9).  Learners' preparations for online learning include a strong comfort level with writing, using Web technologies, and computer proficiency (Dabbagh, 2007).  Furthermore, online learners should have acquired “self-discipline, self-monitoring, self-initiative, and self-management, which are characteristics of self-regulated or self-directed learning" (Dabbagh, 2007, par. 10), which are especially critical due to the physical absence of an instructor.  

A Community of Practice (COP) is a "pedagogical model grounded in a theory of learning as a social process and implemented in an online context through knowledge networks, asynchronous learning networks, and other Internet and Web-based collaborative and communication technologies" (Dabbagh, 2007, par. 10).  An online learner's "need for affiliation manifests itself in online learning environments" (Dabbagh, 2007, par. 10), which is an example of a COP.  Knowledge-sharing is recognized as intellectual capital.  Although online learning typically includes skills that enable learners to "(a) act competently on their own; (b) have confidence in their knowledge, skills, and performance; and (c) learn how to create and manage a personal presence" (Dabbagh, 2007, par. 13), learners' needs for affiliation are paramount to achieving  success in an online learning environment.  The collaborative skills required for online learning include "social learning skills, discursive or dialogical skills, self and group evaluation skills, and reflection skills" (Dabbagh, 2007, par. 15). 

The Illinois Online Network and the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois (2010) wrote that successful online teaching and learning provides an accessibility to technology, and online instructors who promote a comfortable learning atmosphere.  A powerful element in today's online learning paradigms ensures that curriculums are developed or converted according to online learning needs.

Castro (2012) mirrors Dabbagh's (2007) comments above in that teachers and students no longer exist in the online learning environment as individuals but instead as "participants in a dynamic and collective system of meaning" (p. 165).  Furthermore, the parameters of how learners and administration view online teachers should also include teachers as "images, objects, events, encounters, and so on" (Castro, 2012, p. 165).  "If learning exists at multiple scales, from cellular to cultural, then so does teaching" (Castro, 2012, p. 165).

Further support of the paradigm that addresses learners' increased participation in their learning is noted by Tu, Sujo-montes, Yen, Chan, & Blocher (2012) who wrote that "learners have freedom to access, create, and recreate their learning content; and they have opportunities to interact outside of a learning system" (p. 13).  Educators focusing on “social, open, and network aspects have integrated various Web 2.0 technologies to support their existing online instruction in a learning management system (LMS)" (Tu et al., 2012, p. 13).  Tu et al. (2012) remarked that "integrating multiple tools simultaneously is the best strategy for infusing teaching and learning paradigms" (p. 13). 

Consequently, Tu et al. (2012) noted that social networking tools represent new teaching and learning potentialities, and have resulted in a "fundamental shift in the way students learn, consume, and produce new artifacts" (p. 13).  Web 2.0 integration has required a modification  from a "more teacher and institution-centered mindset to more distributed, personalized effort and collaboration" (Tu et al., 2012, p. 13).  Tu et al. (2012) also recommended that to avoid the  potential for any disconcerting impact on learning using Web 2.0 integration, teachers can use Open Network Learning Environments (ONLE), and ask students to construct their own Personal Learning Environments (PLE), which can support an effective open network for communicating, interacting, and collaborating.  Learning Management Systems that include a PLE and ONLE  enable learners and educational institutions to successfully "prepare competent global digital citizens (who can) create, share, and collaborate digital learning content and resources in global communities regardless of their socioeconomic status and geographic locations" (Tu et al., 2012, p. 18).

Reflecting perspectives as noted above, Shovein, Huston, Fox, & Damazo (2005) wrote that teachers can influence "an awakening awareness" (par. 10) in others when the learning environment possesses a "milieu of freedom and gives greater than usual prominence to educational experiences in which personal involvement is magnified and intensified" (par. 10).  In continuing support of the above successful teaching and learning theories, Shovin et al. (2005)  wrote that current paradigms include elements wherein "students and teachers are responsible together for education, students are responsible for critically considering reality, the teacher relinquish(es) control and exchanges the role of narrator for one of student among students" (par. 11).  Teachers can experience new freedoms by "consulting with and by engaging students in meaningful dialogue" (Shovein et al., 2005, par. 13). 

New teaching and learning paradigms using technology have transferred teachers into the role as mediator and coach using encouragement to aid learners in developing knowledge more actively.  Shovein, Huston, Fox, & Damazo (2005) indicated that teachers are increasingly challenged due to a heavier responsibility for engaging and encouraging "authentic, meaningful dialogue that promotes caring in all learning situations, regardless of the activities or technology used to support the pedagogy" (par. 22).  In fact, a prominent challenge for teachers is to not find the "best" e-tool but finding the highest quality answers to the many "learning challenges inherent in a global, information-based society" (par. 23).  Answering challenges associated with today's online teaching and learning technologies that have affected the increased proliferation of learners wanting to be more responsible and participatory in their own learning achievements have impacted the degree of success in yesterday's paradigms, which are evolving into today's and tomorrow's teaching and learning paradigms.

References:

Castro, J.C. (2012, Winter). Learning and teaching art: Through social media. Studies in Art Education, 53(2), 152. Retrieved from ProQuest Research Library.

Dabbagh, N. (2007). The online learner: Characteristics and pedagogical implications. Retrieved from  http://www.citejournal.org/vol7/iss3/general/article1.cfm

Illinois Online Network and the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois. (2010). Weaknesses of online learning. Retrieved from http://www.ion.uillinois.edu/resources/tutorials/overview/weaknesses.asp

Shovein, J., Huston, C., Fox, S., & Damazo, B. (2005, November-December). Challenging traditional teaching and learning paradigms: Online learning and emancipatory teaching. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3317/is_6_26/ai_n29227982/pg_3/?tag=content;col1

Tu, C., Sujo-montes, L., Yen, C., Chan, J., & Blocher, M. (2012, May-June). The integration of

personal learning environments & open network learning environments. TechTrends,

56(3), 13-19. Retrieved from ProQuest Education Journals.