Using SL and Theatron: Initial observations

Mark ChildsDoctoral Student,

University of Warwick

Initial findings

• Grounded approach• Preliminary categories• Small number of users at this stage– 3 case studies– 30 students

• Will test more widely• Then revisit the following observations

Uses

• Bringing people together– Discussion, performance, language learning

• Exploring, inhabiting– Spaces, resources

• Roleplay / identity tourism– Being others, exploring self

• Creation– Art, fashion, machinima, a new you

Michele Ryan at Lancaster University has identified 16 uses of Second Life (at last count). These can be read at http://www.ukcle.ac.uk/ resources/ict/secondlife.html

Barriers

• “New technologies always meet resistance” Tom Boellstorff at VWBPE 09

• Additionally Second Life presents particular issues– Technological infrastructure– Interface– Presence creation– Polarises students

“This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered

as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.” —

A memo at Western Union, 1878

Steve Warburton at King’s College London has identified 7 barriers to Second Life (at last count). These can be read at http://warburton.typepad.com/liquidlearning/2008/07/six-barriers-to.html

Flaws in IT services support

• Out of date hardware• Restrictive firewalls• Length of time to install

upgrades• Insufficient bandwidth• Restriction on use of IT

rooms• Poorly designed IT rooms

Flaws in Second Life

• Lag• Lag• Too frequent (and badly

timed) upgrades• Cap on registrations• Lag• Lag• Lag

Technological barriers

Learning the interface

• Approximately half of students struggled with using the interface to move and navigate– Needed one session to just get used to interface– The process was speeded up when we avoided

(dis)orientation island– No correlation with whether they were gamers or

not– No correlation with whether they valued the

experience or not

No correlation that we’ve detected so far. We’ve only looked at small numbers at the moment.

Presence creation

• Unlike other software, virtual worlds depend on establishing the experience of virtual presence and embodiment in order to be effective

• In the trials so far, all the students that reported experiencing presence found the educational activity valuable

• All the students that reported not experiencing presence found the activity pointless

• I.e. an exact one-to-one correlation between presence creation and educational impact

Polarising student base

• Student reactions to Second Life appear more emotive than to other software.

• Strongly negative (usually between ¼ to ⅓ ) “This is pointless.”

• Strongly positive (the remainder) “I’m a flying cardboard box. It’s mint.”

• Seems to play the biggest part in success (more than interface, learning design, etc.)

Studying student reactions

• Because the emergent finding in the research is the key part played by student attitudes, this is now being built in to the study

• This is a process of identifying statements, grouping these by type, testing these groups with further studies

• Preliminary (we stress) findings identify three categories (at the moment)

Type 1

• Technically experienced• May be a gamer (see following slide on gamer

hierarchies)• Focuses on the lower resolution graphics of

VWs in comparison with games• Becomes especially frustrated with glitches,

crashes and lag• May have a point

The “Fault-finder”

I’m a PC Gamer. I

look down on consoles

I’m a console gamer. PC games

scare me but I ridicule virtual

worlds.

I’m a resident of Second Life. I know

my place.

I’m a resident of Second Life. I know

my place.

Well, I’m a Mac User and you’re all peasants.

Type 2

• Feels particularly alienated by inability to read facial expressions

• Values tactile and physical experiences particularly

• Extrovert• “So strongly situated in the real world and their

real body that they have a difficult time becoming involved in a virtual world” (Heeter, 1995; 200)

The “Feelie”

Type 3

• Views education as an activity to be engaged with seriously at all times

• The superficial resemblance of VWs to games deters them

• The fantasy elements (flying, teleportation) are seen as frivolous and any experience inworld is therefore seen as inauthentic

• Regards the activities of others in the space (dancing, morphing) as having an undermining effect on learning activities

The “Killjoy”

The solution

• Even for those who can feel embodiment and virtual presence these take time to develop

• They are strengthened by – Building an identity– Building links with community– Having a home

• The learning activities need to be appropriate to the level of embodiment developed

• More than becoming adept at using the interface, it’s about becoming one with the world and the avatar, and this takes time

Steve Warburton has a graphic showing the changing identification with your avatar over time at http://warburton.typepad.com/liquidlearning/2008/01/loving-your-ava.html

Learning inworld

Presence

Time

Messing around Assimilative

learning

Social constructivist

learning Experiential learning

Performance

Or something like this, we’re

still working on it

So where does that leave us?

• The greater the degree of presence required the more difficult it is to– justify the time required– Keep focused on the end point of the activity– Keep all of the students on-board

• It may be that performance requires the highest degree of presence (and hence time), therefore may be the highest risk activity to undertake