Graphics Programs Reference
In-Depth Information
ments and feeling the camaraderie of the class”
(Nesson & Nesson, 2009, p. 278).
At the same time, the instructor must continue
to provide a guiding hand as students become ac-
climated to the virtual world. However, it is likely
that the instructor will find a changing role, “From
expert and perhaps the sole or major information
source, to facilitator, coach, or mentor—in other
words, to one who, first and foremost, provides
leadership and wisdom in guiding student learn-
ing” (Berge, 2008, pp. 408-409).
Nevertheless, the instructor's role continues
to be an important one in this brave new virtual
world. She cannot sit back and let the students
explore on their own, but must also take an ac-
tive role. In the same way we find direct contact
between the instructor and the students important
in the real classroom, the same relationship ex-
ists in the virtual. As Nesson suggests, “Without
a personal connection to the instructor, students
may not feel comfortable asking for the help…
they need” (p 278). Instructors must find ways to
adapt to this new environment, and new methods
of not only presenting themselves to the students
but also new ways of interacting with the students
in the cyberspace classroom (Berge, 2008, pp.
411-412). At the same time, instructors need to
find methods of incorporating the “points of dif-
ference” between teaching in the real and virtual
worlds (Nesson & Nesson, 2009, p. 274).
Further specific discussion of the benefits of
bringing students to a MUVE will be discussed
below, within the specifics of my Theatre Tech-
nology course.
of projects relating to theatre. While this meth-
odology provides students with a strong example
of what theatre is, there are also limitations to
this approach. For example, we can discuss the
structure of an ancient Greek theatre, and I can
point out similarities with the theatre space in
which I am teaching. However, without a direct
one-to-one correspondence, students who are less
visually oriented may not be able to understand
fully the details of the ancient structure.
The usual method of theatre instruction has
long been a traditional one, exemplified by the
master/apprentice model. The instructor in the
discipline, whether of acting, design, or other
area, presents material to the student while they
share the same space. The student then practices
the material, attaining more experience, and work-
ing toward attaining the same master status as
the mentor. Theatre production has shared this
non-technological approach; theatre has long been
defined as the interaction between an actor and a
spectator in a shared physical space.
Often, when confronted by the uses technol-
ogy can have in teaching and producing theatre,
practitioners and teachers balk; for them, the ap-
plication of digital technology violates the organic
nature of the discipline in which they have been
working. For them, theatre is an art that flourishes
in a personal, hands-on environment. Yet, these
same practitioners may feel lost without modern
makeup, machine-sewn costumes, or computer
boards that allow lighting designers a wealth of
freedom and possibilities. Somehow, the addi-
tion of the digital computer tool is anathema at
present, even when other advances in technology
have now been embraced. My own incorporation
of digital technology in teaching Introduction to
Theatre has shown (anecdotally) a rise in student
retention of some course material (Schrum, 2000).
While I do not advocate moving all of my
theatre instruction into a MUVE, the extension
of some aspects of theatrical education into a
virtual classroom can be useful for a wide range
of theatrical topics. In a virtual world, students
THeATRe INSTRUCTION
IN SeCOND LIFe
One of the goals I have endeavored to reach with
all of my RL theatre courses is that of “teaching
theatre with theatre”—that is, using the basic
conventions of theatre and performance in the
presentation of the material and the development
Search WWH ::
Custom Search