My colleagues, Mette Allermand, Anna Brodersen, Carsten Lund Rasmussen, and I have an extended summary accepted for the SFI VET Congress 2017. The congress takes place at the Swiss Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training (SFIVET) in Bern/Zollikofen, Switzerland from March 14-16 2017. The theme of the congress is Unleashing the creative potential of VET, and Danish Professor, Lene Tanggaard Pedersen is one of the keynote speakers.
Our extended summary is entitled Technology-mediated Boundary Objects and Boundary Crossing in Vocational Education and Training – an instructional design model, and the abstract reads as follows:
In this extended summary, we propose an instructional design model aimed at using technology-mediated boundary objects and boundary crossing processes in vocational education and training. The model is based on preliminary findings from a current research project (2015-2017) on vocational teachers’ perceptions of transfer and boundary crossing and their use of information and communication technology (ICT) in relation to such processes. Theoretically the model is inspired by Akkerman & Bakker’s (2011) proposal of four dialogical learning processes, which are attributed boundary crossing potential. Empirically the model has been field validated among Danish vocational teachers attending continuing professional development courses at The Metropolitan University College in Denmark. While the instructional design model has been positively received among the vocational teachers, we still consider it to be a work-in-progress, and further research on how to scaffold the use of the model is needed.
As seen in this abstract, we aim to present an instructional design model we have developed based on findings in the first phase of our research project on ICT, transfer and boundary crossing in vocational education and training that we are currently conducting at the Metropolitan University College. Based predominantly on boundary crossing theory, but also with theoretical inspiration from Henningsen & Mogensen (2013) in relation to mediating tools, we have developed an instructional design model. Figure 1 below shows the model in its initial conception:
Figure 1. The TBOC-model version 1.0.
In figure 2 the TBOC-model is shown with examples of technologies that can be used in relation to different boundary crossing processes.
Figure 2. TBOC-model with examples.
It’s important to notices that our work with the model is still very much in progress. Carsten and I have used the model in pedagogical exercises with in-service vocational teachers this fall, and we are still in the process of analyzing data from those design experiments. Furthermore, we are revisiting data from previous interviews and observations in an effort to further validate the model. In the spring of 2017, we plan to collect more data at vocational schools, and we’ll continue our work with the model – also based on new theoretical insights (e.g. this study by Marheineke).
Akkerman, S.F. & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. In Review of Educational Research. June 2011, Vol. 81, No. 2, pp. 132-169
Henningsen, S.E. & Mogensen, F. (red.) (2013). Mellem teori og praksis. Om transfer i professionsuddannelser. [Between theory and praxis. On transfer in Bachelor’s Degree and Academy Profession Degree programmes. ] VIA Systime.
In a recent post I wrote about why I don’t consider SL a game, Richard Bartle was very kind to comment and point my attention to one of his articles entitled “Alice and Dorothy play together” (Bartle, 2009). I’ve now read it and together with some of Bartle’s other works, I find it very useful in relation to my own work with what I prefer to call open-ended Virtual Worlds – so thank you again, Richard for stopping by and pointing to various resources :-)
In the article, Bartle describes three philosophies or design approaches that have influenced the work of designing Virtual Worlds. Based on three major fictional works, Alice in Wonderland, Dorothy from Oz, and Wendy in Neverland, Bartle identifies differences and commonalities and discusses their ability to “play together”. It’s important to notice that Bartle is addressing a game (world) designer audience, and that Bartle’s work in general has focused on Virtual Worlds designed with the explicit intent to entertain the players – fun is the key motivation for using such worlds. In the table below, I’ve tried to summarize some of Bartle’s points.
Without going too much into detail with the table here in this post, I think it’s important to notice a couple of things in order to understand what follows. In terms of “appeal” this should be seen in the light of immediate attraction, does the world attract and more importantly retain newbies? Evidently, a Dorothy world like WoW (with millions of active players) also appeals to oldbies, the kind of players who find joy and interest in “leveling up”, the kind Bartle calls “Achievers” (as we shall see further down). The table also shows why SL has problems when it comes to retaining users (with approx. 20 mio. accounts, but less than 100.000 concurrent users on a daily basis, there is a problem). Judging from the table, SL’s credo “Your World, Your Imagination” becomes a double-edged sword. The lack of a fixed narrative leaves the SL-user completely on his/her own to come up with a reason to play/stay. This problem, however, is not unique to SL, but points to a classic dilemma between the different needs of newbies and oldbies. Following from this, the next question that comes to mind then is: what motivates Wendy? or more precisely, why do users find interest in SL and what do they do in SL?
In “Designing Virtual Worlds” Bartle explains how he in the early 90’s, based on a long-lasting debate between senior players of MUD2 regarding the motives for playing, analyzed the ideas of what constituted fun and found that players could be categorized into four major types:
- Achievers, who are interested in doing things to the game, i.e. in ACTING on the WORLD. (later sub-categorized in Opportunists and Planners)
- Explorers, who are interested in having the game surprise them, i.e. in INTERACTING with the WORLD. (later sub-categorized in Scientists and Hackers*)
- Socializers, who are interested in INTERACTING with other PLAYERS. (later sub-categorized in Networkers and Friends)
- Killers, who are interested in doing things to people, ie. in ACTING on other PLAYERS. (later sub-categorized in Griefers and Politicians)
Based on continued refinement of these categories, Bartle created the so-called Player Interest Graph depicted below:
The Original Player Interest Graph (Bartle, 1996/2004 – see references)
The graph describes players in terms of two dimensions: how they prefer acting on things as opposed to interacting with, and how they prefer to direct their attentions toward other players. When trying to apply this graph to SL, I see three issues that don’t match.
- The term “players” indicates that there is a game to be played**.
- The category “killers” implies a combat game-type world.
- The category “achievers” is also closely tied to the existence of a game – Bartle highlights their motivation: “These people put the game-like aspect of the virtual world to the fore. They like doing things that achieve defined goals, thereby progressing their character through the world’s built-in ranking system.” (Bartle, 2004, p. 130)
Regardless of this, I still think the principal idea of the graph can be used in relation to SL, and so I have re-designed the graph:
SL User Interest Graph
- Users is my personal preference. Linden Lab calls its users “residents”, and many experienced users in SL refer to themselves as “residents” – I do too. It is, however, a problematic term. My observations and research data clearly show that many (especially newbies, but not only) feel homeless and marginalized from the general SL community (but this has to be the topic of another post).
- Griefers is a term borrowed from the game worlds, it is, however, how we define trouble-makers in SL too, and the term is also used in academic writings on SL (i.e. Boellstorff, 2008). I did consider the Internet term “troll”, but since trolls seem to be deliberately malicious, and my experience with (some) griefers is that they often have more humorous intentions (albeit still annoying to those they act upon), I discarded it.
- Designers refers to the SL users, who well … design things (buildings, art, clothes, animations etc.). I did consider the term “producers”, but in my opinion the socializers also produce and contribute to the content of SL. Compared to Bartle’s achievers, there are some interesting similarities. Designers also aim at mastering and acting upon the world, and even though there is no leveling system in SL, the mastery also results in high scores in terms of social capital (cf. Huvila et al, 2010).
Given my particular focus on education, I would also categorize teachers (and to some extent students) as designers – we design for learning, but that’s another story :-)
*) Bartle uses the term to refer to skills, rather than (malicious) intentions.
**) Yes, I’m aware of Linden Realms and the many RP-communities in SL, but that still doesn’t make it a game per se.
Bartle, R.A. (no date): Virtual Worlds: Why People Play.
Bartle, R.A. (1996): Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players who suit MUDs.
Bartle, R.A. (2004): Designing Virtual Worlds. New Riders.
Bartle, R.A. (2009): Alice and Dorothy play together. In: Harrigan, P. & Wardrip-Fruin, N. (eds) Third Person – authoring and exploring vast narratives. The MIT Press. p. 105-117
Boellstorff, T. (2008): Coming of age in Second Life. An anthropologist explores the virtually human. Princeton University Press.
Huvila, I.; Holmberg, K.; Ek, S. & Widen-Wulff (2010): Social capital in Second Life. In: Emeralindsight, Vol. 34, No. 2, 2010. p. 295-316
Together with Ross McKerlich, Terry Anderson, and Bard Eastmann I have a paper out in the Journal of Online Learning and Technology (JOLT). The paper is entitled Student Perceptions of Teaching Presence, Social Presence and Cognitive Presence in a Virtual World, and is based on research collaboration we started back in 2009. Back in January 2099, I participated in a Master Class on Learning 2.0 and Knowledge Media at Aarhus University, where Terry Anderson (Athabasca University) was one of the guest lecturers. When Terry learned about my research in SL, he invited me to participate in a research project that was aimed at investigating the use of the Community of Inquiry (COI) model in 3D environments.
The COI model was developed in the late 1990’s as framework for evaluating educational experience in text-based online environments by D. Randy Garrison, Terry Anderson, and Walther Archer. Given the COI model’s wide spread use in different educational settings it is by no means coincidental that one of the original founders, Terry, has found it important to explore the applicability of the model in new online environments such as the 3D virtual world, SL. Together with Ross McKerlich, Terry conducted a preliminary, qualitative exploratory study in SL in 2007, and basically confirmed that the model also can be used in assessing educational experience in 3D virtual environments (McKerlich & Anderson. 2007).
As part of our collaboration, Terry & Ross, participated in one of my in-world classes with the MIL09 students – something both the students and I appreciated very much.
Anyways, after such a long time, it is great to finally see our paper published, and I want to thank Ross, Terry, and Brad for the collaboration – it was a very good experience :-)
Here’s the abstract of our paper:
Presence – or having a sense of active participation – in distance education has increased with the expanding use of and affordances of communications technologies. Virtual worlds have been on the forefront of popular and education technology in the last three years and innovative methods of teaching and learning are emerging in these contexts. Using the recently validated community of inquiry (COI) instrument, this study focuses on students’ perceptions of teaching, social and cognitive presence in virtual world contexts. The authors examine whether the COI Instrument can effectively be applied to virtual world learning events. The results are exciting: in a diverse sample, virtual world learners perceive teaching presence, social presence and cognitive presence.