Graphics Programs Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 3. Effectiveness of learning activities in Second Life
Statement (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree)
Mean
The learning activities in Second Life required me to think critically
3.23
I was engaged in the learning experience in Second Life
3.71
Second Life was an enriching experience
3.23
The learning experiences were active and collaborative in Second Life
3.64
Using Second Life was fun and exciting
3.43
I was willing to put in the effort needed to complete the learning activities
4.29
I would take another course that used Second Life
2.79
I would recommend that the instructor continue using Second Life
3.43
I liked using Second Life as part of my course
3.50
Average for all criteria
3.47
needed to complete the learning activities' (4.29);
'I was engaged in the learning experience in
Second Life' (3.71) and 'The learning experi-
ences were active and collaborative in Second
Life ' (3.64) suggest the environment can provide
engaging collaborative experiences for students.
The next highest rating 'I liked using Second Life
as part of my courseā€ (3.50) was interesting
given the students' rating of the criterion 'I would
take another course that used Second Life ' was
much lower (2.79). This rating would appear to
be an active reflection of respondents' views, since
reverse ratings were obtained in response to an
alternative question included in the survey, which
was worded negatively 'I would avoid using
classes using Second Life in the future'. Students
rated this criterion as 3.21, with only 3 (21.4%)
media arts students disagreeing (1 strongly dis-
agree and 2 disagree), and all but one of the re-
maining students strongly agreeing (21.4%) or
agreeing 6 (42.9%) that they would avoid taking
courses that use Second Life in the future. The
one remaining student responded to this question
with a neutral rating. This finding indicates that
even though students in the main agreed that us-
ing Second Life in this course was worthwhile,
they would not want to continue using Second
Life as part of their studies in the future.
Students were also asked a series of questions
relating to the adequacy of the preparation they
were given and the supports available to them in
Second Life . As shown in Table 4, the overall
student rating for these criteria was 3.47, with the
highest rating for the criterion relating to the clar-
ity of the introductory explanations (3.57) and the
lowest rating relating to how well the activity was
organised in Second Life (2.50).
Student responses to a series of open-ended
questions about their experience in Second Life
suggest that some of the technical limitations of
the communication tools in Second Life impacted
on the effectiveness of the medium for interaction
in-world. Several students commented that since
they were already communicating in 'actual life'
the limitations of the chat tools made communica-
tion more difficult. One student noted that 'it was
exactly like using a chat room only more complex
and complicated, just because it has more options
doesn't mean it's better'. Conversely, another
student suggested that 'We didn't actually use
Second Life much ourselves, but we did all enjoy
it in the class when we all used Second Life to-
gether and generated some good interaction both
in-program and in real life' indicating that a
blended learning approach has merit and is wor-
thy of exploration.
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search