Week 6 - Yulia (article review)

The article highlights the potential of 3D MUVEs, particularly SL, from the perspective of future developments in higher education. The author, Gilly Salmon, notes 3 perspectives, such as trends and emerging issues, the power of pedagogical imagination and the potential impact of humans as learning avatars.

The trends identified are the following:

·       Awareness from teachers of the potential of virtual worlds, especially in the teaching of history and science

·       Transfer of pedagogical concepts from other e-environments to frame group development and group working

·       Creation of artefacts for educational purposes, sometimes by the learners themselves

·       ‘Immersion’ in cultures otherwise inaccessible

·       Creation of realistic environments for practice

·       Awareness of virtual worlds and interest from internet users

·       Integration with other learning technologies with a view to creating 3D virtual classrooms

·       Predictions of interest from commerce and industry for skills development

(Salmon, 2009, p. 530).

In terms of pedagogical imagination, Salmon (2009) argues that creativity can be one of the ways to see things outside the square and explore both learning and teaching approaches we haven’t had the chance to do before. Furthermore, as she notes, if “we look back too much, we risk inventing the future based on outdated models of teaching and learning” (Salmon, 2009, p. 531). Perhaps, Salmon is being a bit critical of the research based solely on literature reviews and inferences from the past studies, or secondary analyses. Or she is trying to signal that some teachers and academics are not progressing in terms of their contribution to the knowledge and practice. Indeed, it is the new elements – be it experiments, alternative research methods or new technology trials and implementations - that make pedagogy and academic research progressive and innovative. She suggests that SL provides an opportunity to experiment and discover possibilities that could have positive contribution to the practice. For example, virtual artefacts can be manipulated in ways that are impossible in the real life or they can be used as a spark to start a dialogue. For the language teachers it could be seen as a trigger to motivate learners to communicate with each other and practice what they have learned.

Speaking of avatars, it should be noted that avatars aren’t independent creatures; they are visual representations of their ‘operators’ (Hew & Cheung, 2008 as cited in Salmon, 2009). For Salmon (2009), they are a personification of the individual who drives the avatar. However, the functionality of an avatar in SL allows users to change appearance, physical features, clothes, etc. whenever a user feels like, which is not possible in the real life. Given such opportunities to create various identities and position oneself accordingly, Salmon suggests we need to focus on how avatar-learner and avatar-teacher can work together in this environment and examine how relationships and interactions are embodied. Examples include: greeting, playing signaling group affiliation, conveying opinions or feelings, creating a strong sense of presence or ‘being there’ with others, etc. I guess these examples fall under the group of factors that affect both teaching and learning processes and examining them will help us have a better understanding of interactions and relationships that are built in SL.

Salmon’s (2009) article is written in the genre of an academic essay and provides a strong advocacy for being creative as a way to contribute to the knowledge and practice. Although the focus of the article is quite generic, as suggested by its name - the future for (second) life and learning - it can be quite helpful for those who plan on committing themselves to the research on SL and its potential.

Reference:

Salmon, G. (2009). The future for (second) life and learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), 526-526. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00967.x