As we begin to examine closely the properties of why particular technologies are considered “disruptive”, I found myself not quite understanding the rationale of why Second Life was placed into this particular category. In my mind’s eye; the progression of virtual worlds within the realm of technology for social interaction is one of a natural evolution of events.
The Internet has opened multiple opportunities for social interaction: The AOL, Yahoo, and Windows Live Messenger Services provided real-time social interactions with individual or groups; venues that were instituted before the Pre- Second Life era. We herald this advent of technology as one that affords us the ability to communicate with our global neighbors; opening avenues of information that were not possible decades earlier. The Internet has become our best resource for collaboration and cooperation amongst ourselves: for the sharing of information, insights, and understandings with ourselves, our communities, and our world. Why wouldn’t an individual devise a program with a way for others to socially interact within a centralized location via virtual worlds?
Phillip Rosedale, the creator of Second Life, in his discourse began to open my understanding. His premise is that individuals desire the ability to organize and experience information that is being received: virtual worlds provide that avenue. His second premise is the experience of this creation and interaction with information is “implicitly and inherently social”. (Rosedale, 2008) Fascinating! What is more fascinating is that this premise has its roots in Dewey’s Theory of Experience. The idea that learning activities should be designed in such a way the student interacts with the information, experiences the information, thereby constructing their own knowledge is constructivist approach at its best. Knowledge generation begins with knowledge creation. Learning is a social event. Second Life provides this freedom to create.
As I began to make these connections, I found myself understanding how Second Life, within the realm of K-12 education, would definitely be considered as “disruptive technology”. Second Life revolutionizes the way the student interacts with the information given. This concept is not well understood among those who would drive educational policy. Students must actively experience information and construct their own tree of knowledge in order for knowledge retention to occur. Learning outcomes increase when students are active participants in their own learning. Passive learning: no such animal.
The teacher would abandon the role of “know it all” to the role of facilitator: a co-creator of the knowledge experience. It takes a certain amount of guts to be an educator, yet not sit in the seat of the “driver of knowledge”. Second Life’s very nature disrupts traditional teaching/learning continuum. What a pleasant disruption.
I premise that by the time an emerging or another disruptive technology replaces Second Life, the educational arena will have understood it full value in the quest to enhance student learning outcomes. The tendency for educators to jump on the technology wagon is an arduous process.
Rosedale, P. (2008). Phillip Rosedale on second life. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/the_inspiration_of_second_life.html
Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience and education. Touchstone: NY.
I agree that it is very difficult to get teachers on board with new technologies - especially social networking and virtual worlds. I also agree that students learn best when they are actively engaged. The similarities among AOL, Second Life, and Facebook are there; but I think the differences are even greater. I think that Second Life is a great tool for education, but the teacher must also be extremely comfortable with the technology.
ReplyDelete