Using ADDIE Model to Design Second Life activities for Online Learners Shiang-Kwei Wang, Ph.D. Master of Science in Instructional Technology, New York Institute of Technology USA [email protected] Hui-Yin Hsu, Ph.D. Teacher Education, New York Institute of Technology USA [email protected]

Abstract: This paper examines the nature of a virtual learning environment – Second Life--, and introduces several Second Life learning examples to help readers who never used Second Life understand its merits and setback on teaching and learning. Second Life provides the following merits for online educators: enriched learning experiences, strengthen sense of social presence, enable multi-levels of interaction, empower constructivism, and enriched multimedia resources. To help Second Life beginner faculty who teach online explores potential of integrating Second Life into curriculum, the authors shares the experience of using the instruction design principle (analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation) to design learning activities in Second Life virtual environment for the traditional learners. The target readers are college level faculty who teach courses online and are interested in exploring the use of Second Life.

Introduction Second Life (http://www.secondlife.com), a 3D multi-user virtual environment (MUVE), is imaged, maintained, and developed by its own users. Over six millions users from over 100 countries in the real life have been attracted to become residents in the Second Life (Pence, 2007). Non-profit and profit organizations, academic, and schools have built islands, established presence, and explored its benefits to their target users. Many educators and students who are not familiar with the virtual learning environment should have opportunity to be introduced the rationales of using Second Life (SL). This paper summarizes merits of adopting SL in teaching and learning, issues of using SL, and introduces the use of the instructional design principle to design SL learning activities.

Why use Second Life? With the advancement of computer and network technology, more and more universities have been adopting online campus mode to offer courses to its students. Usually students participate in the courses with Course Management System such as Blackboard. With the Course Management System students who reside far away from the campus can interact with instructor and peers, and submit works for instructors to review online asynchronously. To help increase students’ social presence, some instructors adopt synchronous communication tools in their online teaching, for example, VoIP (Skype) tool (Pan and Sullivan, 2005), or webinar (Elluminate) tool (Wang & Hsu, in press). However, the issue that online learners’ completion rate is lower than traditional face-to-face learners’ remains unsolved (Diaz, 2002; Keith 2006). With the more advanced computer technology and more sophisticated Internet applications, educators should explore the possibilities to engage and maintain online learners’ learning motivation and in return to improve their learning outcomes. The following section discusses the rationales to integrate SL in online learning environments. To help readers visualize these examples and the contexts, the authors captured SL video clips captured from SL and disseminate the video clips through the web page: http://secondlifeforme.blogspot.com.

--2045--

Enriched Learning Experience SL provides a near-real life environment and allows users accessing to objects or phenomena impossible to observe or examine in the real life. For example, The International Spaceflight Museum enables users to play with the scientific objects such as lunar landing module; the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration built the Earth System Research Laboratory, and provides simulator for users to experience the simulation of tsunami and observe the process of glacier retreat. Users can visit the mystic world or unfamiliar culture such as Maya Culture Explorer Center. Some organizations replicate the real world event in the SL for users who cannot visit the event in person, for example Sony-Ericson built a virtual exhibit which is similar to their real exhibit at the 2008 Barcelona Mobile World Congress. Instructors can organize virtual trips and have students explore and experience phenomena of interest in SL. Strengthen Sense of Social Presence Social presence refers to the “sense of being together with someone” (Short, Williams & Christie, 1976). Social presence has been an important element in the online learning environment because it is the sense of social presence of other online participants, which usually is missing or weaker in the asynchronous type of learning environment compared to the face-to-face learning (Garrison, Cleveland_Innes & Fung, 2004; Ocker & Yaverbaum, 1999). Building a strong sense of community to connect all online learners becomes an important issue for online educators (Hill & Raven, 2000; Lally & Barrett, 1999). In SL, users interact with each other through the virtual agent – avatar. Avatar is an identity which is customized by the user. The users can create an avatar that is similar to his/her appearance, or totally different than their actual looks, such as an alien or a rabbit. Jung (2008) did a study and the results revealed that social presence has a direct relationship with users’ intention to participate in the SL online community. Pence also pointed out that students in SL feel a strong attachment to their avatars (Pence, 2007). Users’ social presence is being established through the interaction between near-real avatars in SL, which yields SL great potentials to strengthen online learners’ sense of community. For a class conducted in a pure asynchronous online environment, the instructor could consider meeting with all students several times in the SL to help them sense the social presence of all participants in this class. Enable Multi-levels of Interaction Interactions occurred on a web-based learning environment usually are categorized into three: (1) between students and content, (2) between instructors and students, and (3) among students (Moore, 1989; Northrup & Rasmussen, 2000). In the asynchronous learning environment, conducted through a course management system (e.g. Blackboard), users have greater flexibility to manage learning time, and have more time to reflect and respond to others (Meyer, 2003). The first type of interaction is difficult to be replaced by the synchronous communication tools because learners need more time to digest and reflect the content; moreover, the documents management feature is poor in SL (Kemp & Livingstone, 2006) which made it difficult for instructors to organize learning materials. (The condition to have students build objects is not the focus of the paper, since the discussion aims at faculty who use SL as a tool to supplement the subject, not teach SL.) However, SL can better support and enrich the rest two types of social interactions because participants can interact with each other immediately in the synchronous communication environment, and choose their avatars to represent them as if they are actually there. The social interaction occurs through both verbal and non-verbal forms in the SL (Robbins, 2007). Nonverbal forms include the posturing, appearance, movement and sound effects of avatars; verbal forms include text chat and voice chat. The non-verbal forms of interaction are just as the interaction in the real life. For example, the presenters once met with the class in SL and decided to visit a library impromptu. The library desk person noticed a group of people rushed into the library lobby all of a sudden. He was very nervous and followed us into the lobby. When the presenter informed him privately about our purpose, he seemed relief but still kept an eye on us and hovered around until the meeting was over. In a virtual world, most users treat each other like in the real world and expect others follow the real-life social rules and regulations. Therefore, the body language plays an important role in the SL and signals instructor if the attendees pay attention to the class, distract to other content, or can catch up with the learning progress.

--2046--

The interaction occurring in a courses conducted in the course management system is closed, meaning students interact with the instructor and their peers. With SL, participants have opportunities to meet with users from anywhere in the world. The feature gives instructors opportunity to have students enrolled in different classes or even different campuses collaborate, or invite keynote from remote area to give speech for the class virtually. Empower Constructivism Constructivists believe that learners construct knowledge through their own prior knowledge and unique personal experiences with the world. Thus, educators believe in constructivism should provide environments for users to explore and construct their own meaning. Dalgarno (2001) summarized three broad principles to define the constructivist view of learning: “(1) each person forms their own representation of knowledge, (2) learning occurs when the learner’s exploration uncovers an inconsistency between their current knowledge representation and their experience, and (3) learning occurs within a social context, and that interaction between learners and their peers is a necessary part of the learning process. (p. 184)” The three principles can be supported and mediated by Second Life. In SL, each learner has the freedom to discover the information to his/her interests or explore knowledge from the web through the “teleport” function and the “hyperlink” feature. SL provides manifold simulators that allow users to experiment and observe the immediate responses and how the different combinations of parameters affect the simulation results. Learners’ curiosity is aroused through the interaction with the simulators (e.g. observe the glacier retreat). The multiple forms of information provided (e.g. related web sites, pictures, videos, other islands) encourage users to deduce the facts associated with the topic. The communication tools (voice chat, text chat) provided by SL enable the social interaction among learners. The instructor or group members can provide immediate help or guidance to support learners to complete task individually or collaboratively. In addition, Jonassen (et al., 1995) pointed out that “Constructivism can provide theoretical bases for …computer-mediated communication”. SL is one of the tools that support computer-mediated communication and facilitate the exchange of social experiences. SL provides a near-real world that allows instructors design authentic tasks to require learners explore the world, solve problems, construct and negotiate meaning, and collaborate with other learners. Enriched Multimedia Resources In addition to text, images, and 3D objects, SL supports the playback of audio and video files, enables twoway voice chat, and connects with hyperlinked materials on the web. Users can capture 2D images of the SL snapshot, or record video clips to document activities and interactions. The legitimate members of an island can create and build 3D models, and design interaction through the SL programming scripts.

Issues of Using Second Life The hardware requirements of using SL are demanding and users might have to upgrade their computer equipment in order to smoothly use SL without delayed speed or rough graphic effects. Some organizations or schools block the use of SL so students have to use their home computers to login SL. Unlike learning in a physical classroom or through the course management system, the SL session is opened to anyone on the Internet. People with suspicious intentions might interrupt the class by entering the meeting site, observing the classroom, or distracting students by using private text message. If the class is mainly communicating through the text message in SL, the text becomes tangle and it’s difficult for the instructors to follow the conversation. The number of participants should not be too many for instructors to give individual attention, otherwise it would be a challenge to conduct group activities or interact with each participant. The asynchronous communication tools provide a better approach to facilitate structured and mandated discussion (Johnson, 2006).

--2047--

Using Instructional Design Principles to Amplify SL Learning The second part of this paper is to discuss the process to apply instructional design principles to design SL learning activities. Moving students from face-to-face environment to SL does not guarantee the better learning outcomes. Online educators must understand the pros and cons of a new tool, and then investigate how the new tool can meet the instructional needs. The instructional design principle provides a systematic method to help educators to design the learning activities to meet the learning objectives and evaluate the learning outcomes. Although there are many instructional design models adopted by practioners and educators, for this learning activity we chose ADDIE (Peterson, 2003), a generic and simplified instructional systems design model (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation), to reflect the professional organization of the instructional technology field AECT’s (Association for Educational Communications and Technology) learning standards. The presenters share an example to use ADDIE to design a SL learning activity. Phase one (Analysis): The instructor should conduct a need analysis to determine the needs of the target learners by measuring what they have known and what they should know about the content. The analysis should also include the learners’ prior knowledge, learning characteristics, motivation, technology affordance, the goal and the learning objectives. This SL class was conducted in an instructional technology graduate program, focuses on the trainers’ preparation, and locates in a four year university in New York. Among the twelve participants, most were part-time students, so online learning provides them a more flexible way to participate in the class. Although the class was delivered through the course management system for three months, the instructor decided to use SL to meet with the students several sessions to give them a stronger online sense of community. The other reason we adopted SL is because many business and organizations have built presence on SL, trainers were interested in the applications of SL and the benefits of using SL in their organizations. Therefore, the learning objectives of the SL sessions are: (1) know the basic operation of SL, (2) understand the pros and cons of using SL in teaching and learning, (3) know exemplars cases of using SL in K-12, higher education, and corporation. None of the students have used SL before enrolled in the class. Phase two (Design): In the design phase, the instructor should design learning strategies, learning activities, assessments, and methods to organize and present the content based on the learning objectives. Since none of the students have used SL before, the instructor had to design a sequence of activities to help them familiar with the operation of SL, and explore potentials of SL to improve teaching and learning. Activity 1: Students were instruct to create a SL account and edit their avatars appearance, and then add each other as friends. If the user is lost or trapped in SL, his/her friend can use the “teleport” feature to relocate them. Then they visited the Orientation Island Public to complete activities on this island. They were required to take a snapshot of playing the ball in the island and post the picture on the Blackboard to prove that they know the skills. Activity 2: Students viewed the designated SL papers and presentation slides to be introduced exemplars of using SL in teaching and learning. Activity 3: Students used teleport function to visit several landmarks designated by the instructor to explore how non-profit museums and schools are using SL. Activity 4: Students were required to answer a list of questions on Blackboard and contribute one good idea to use SL in their fields. Activity 5: Students were required to search for a landmark and share its SLURL with the whole class. Activity 6: Students met with the instructor and each other in SL for two sessions and visit islands with great learning teaching and learning potentials together.

--2048--

Assessments include the SL snapshot pictures, SL islands they found, their statements of how SL can benefit their organizations, reflection and discussion on Blackboard, and a paper discussing the pros and cons, and ideas and potentials of using SL in teaching and learning. Phase 3 (Development): Development is the phase to develop learning materials required for the session. Since the class was conducted in the online session, so the instructor created a web page to list all activities and deadlines to respond to the assignments on Blackboard. With the hyperlink feature, the instructor can list the SLURL of a particular location in SL for students to access. The instructor explored the SL first to make sure all activities were designed well and measure the time students might spend on each activity, and then allot time for students to complete the 6 activities and all assessments within one month. The instructor used the snapshot and video recording features to setup visual examples and post these images and videos on the web page for students to follow. Phase 4 (Implementation): Implementation is the phase to actual launch the course. Students followed the direction on the web page to complete these organized activities and share their reflection and experiences on Blackboard. Each activity was designed to build their confidence to use SL and encourage them to explore ideas to use SL in teaching and learning. Meeting in SL with the whole class provides the participants opportunities to meet with their classmates and strengthen the sense of community. Students were excited about meeting in SL and even requested the instructor to conduct more SL sessions. Phase 5 (Evaluation): Evaluation helps the instructor understand if the curriculum is successful and how it should be improved for the next implementation. Evaluation includes two levels: formative and summative evaluation. The former should be conducted in part of each ADDIE phase to determine effectiveness and quality of each stage; the later focuses on the impact of the curriculum on learners’ performance and satisfaction to the curriculum. A faculty member was invited to participate in the SL activity as an external evaluator to observe the implementation of the class. She provided suggestions and opinions through the observation of the SL sessions. Participants’ interaction in SL, feedback, questions, emails, and responses to the assignments were collected as the source of formative evaluation. Participants’ SL reports were the source of the summative evaluation. Based on the summative evaluation data, about three fourth of the participants’ learning outcomes matched with the learning goals. The students were satisfied with the “near face-to-face” opportunity SL provided them to meet with the instructor and classmates online. All students were willing to allocate time to meet the class in SL even though attending the session is not required. This was an eye-opening experience for the students. Some of them had the impression that SL is a “game” typed of learning which might cause addiction or distraction problem to the learners before they used SL. However after they explored SL and came up with ideas to use SL in teaching and learning, they pointed out that if used it with the appropriate pedagogies, SL is a tool that can enable the abovementioned learning advantages. The full version of the SL lesson plan, the associated SLURL of each island, SL resources for educators are available in the web page: http://secondlifeforme.blogspot.com.

Conclusion Technology is only a tool which should be used to meet the instructional needs; otherwise it would cause distraction or fail to improve the learning outcomes. Instructors teaching online should consider the pros and cons of using SL and what it can do to help engage their online learners, and then design tasks to motivate students to participate in SL. However, the instructors have to avoid “throwing” learners into the SL environment without giving specific instruction or meaningful tasks. The learners should at least be given opportunities to get familiar with the SL operation before they can conduct complicated missions. Students might become frustrated without specific instructions to navigate them to complete tasks in SL. ADDIE provides a systematic method to help instructors design learning tasks in SL virtual environment to ensure SL becomes a tool assisting teaching and learning. The instructor should explore SL first to realize what a SL user can do in the virtual environment, explore

--2049--

how SL activities can relate to the course topic, and then introduce these SL activities to the students. The implementation needs a carefully designed blueprint and has to be tested by instructors in advance.

Reference Dalgarno, B. (2001). Interpretations of constructivism and consequences for computer assisted learning, British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 183-194. Diaz, D. P. (2002). Online drop rates revisited. The Technology Source, May/June. Retrieved May 2, 2007, from http://technologysource.org/article/online_drop_rates_revisited/ Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. (2004). Student role adjustment in online communities of inquiry: Model and instrument validation. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), p.61-74. Johnson, G. M. (2006). Synchronous and asynchronous text-based CMC in educational contexts: A review of recent research. TechTrends, 50(4). 46-53. Jonassen, D. Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag B. B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), p. 7-26. Jung, Y. (2008). Influence of sense of presence on intention to participate in a virtual community. Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Science, p. 325-325 Keith, T.-S. (2006). Early Attrition among first time eLearners: A review of factors that contribute to drop-out, withdrawal and non-completion rates of adult learners undertaking eLearning Programmes. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 2(2), Retrieved July 11, 2007, from http://jolt.merlot.org/Vol2_No2_TylerSmith.htm Hill, J. R., & Raven, A. (2000). Online learning communities: If you build them, will they stay? Instructional Technology Forum, Retrieved April 2, 2007, from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper46/paper46 Kemp, J. & Livingstone, D. (2006). Putting a Second Life “metaverse” skin on learning management systems. Proceedings of the Second Life Education Workshop at the Second Life Community Convention, San Francisco, CA Lally. V., & Barrett, E. (1999). Building a learning community online: Towards socio-academic interaction. Research Papers in Education, 14(2), 147-163. Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: the role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55-65. Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), p.1-6. Northrup, P. T., & Rasmussen, K. L. (2000). Designing a Web-based program: Theory to design. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Long Beach, CA. Pan. C.-C., & Sullivan, M. (2005). Promoting synchronous interaction in an eLearning environment. THE Journal, 33(2), 27-30. Retrieved May 1, 2007 from: http://thejournal.com/articles/17377 Pence, H. E. (2007). The homeless professor in Second Life. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 36(2), p.171-177. Peterson, C. (2003). Bringing ADDIE to life: Instructional design at its best, Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12(3), p.227-241. Robins, S. (2007). A futurist’s view of Second Life education: A developing taxonomy of digital spaces. Second Life Education Workshop: Part of the Second Life community convention, Chicago, USA. P.27-33. Rosalie, J. O. & Yaverbaum, G. J. (1999). Asynchronous computer-mediaed communication versus face-to-face collaboration: Results on student learning, Quality and Satisfaction, 8(5), p.427-440. Short, J., Williams, E. & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: John Wiley & Sons. Wang, S.-K. & Hsu, H.-Y., (in press). Use of the Webinar Tool to Support Training: the Effects of Webinar-learning Implementation from Trainers’ Perspective, Journal of Online Interactive Learning

--2050--