22 Feb 2009

Module 2 - Activity 1: Analysing hands-on workshops

Workshop implementation: delivery of instruction


Workshop Two
One hour workshop whose aim was to listen to chat channels and communicate between scripts.


Workshop design: planning and preparation
Spatial design and layout: Emulation of RL. The class was held in a big room and all the avatars were sitting on chairs in a row.

Instructional design: The pre-requisites were stated and also the learning objective, outcome and goal were structured.


Organisation of instructions and discourse: At the beginning of the class a notecard was provided with all the instructions, so they were pre-prepared. The communication was held through local text chat. At the same time, the information was shown in a board (slide presenter).


Physical organization of learning material: The instructor gave instructions through written local chat and asked participants to click on a box to get the class supply: a notecard with instructions.

Business model: The class was free.


Maturity level / Development version: I think it was tested before, but it was a bit confusing and some of the participants get lost.


Comments: I felt frustrated because it took much more time than foreseen and we didn’t have time to check how it worked with our object.








____________________________________
Workshop implementation: Delivery of instruction

Assessment of prior knowledge: None (Basic level)

Pre-prepared activities to meet the knowledge requirements: None

Prior knowledge: Not recalled

Preparation of user interface and viewing controls: No instruction

Technical preparation of participants: None

Conversational flow: Ordered and controlled progressively by behavioural rules, interaction policies, textual codes, scripts and communication tools.

Communication dynamics: Tutor > Learner (mostly) and some Tutor > < Learner.

Movement of learners and teacher: Constrained sit/position for learners and free movement for teacher.

Presentation of outputs and results: Illustrated at varying of the stages of development but as it was taking longer, the instructor accelerated the pace of the workshop and said that he wanted us to see and then we would do it on our own.

Delivery of learning material: At the beginning of the workshop through a giver device, a box that contained the class supplies.

Use of tools to deliver both content and instructions: Basic SL chat facility.

Use of media to enhance teaching: Basic use of SL text chat, sense of virtual embodiment and a image presenter.

Concurrent learner activity: Activity exclusively centred within the 3D world.

Personalisation of learning: Sometimes the instructor attended participants’ questions.

Pedagogical approach: Directive, focused on procedures, result oriented.

_________________________________________

Implementation of the workshop: follow up and evaluation

Provision of guidance, suppport and feedback: On demand via local text chat or private IMs.

Monitoring of student progress: Gathering of informal feedback and visualization.

Quality of feedback: Informative

Assessment model: None

Comments: As the content of the workshop is a bit complex, I think the instructor should have set more time, have got some helpers so that the participants could create the scripts as shown and experiment their individual objects instead of being based on theory. ____________________________________________________

Implementation of the workshop: recall and transfer of learning

Recapitulation: None, but it was in the notecard to be used after the workshop.

After session resources: None

After session activities: None

Comments: It was an activity that presented a very interesting multi-tool built as a single script but it wasn’t very simple and required more time to create them and try the artifact. Some participants got lost and left before the workshop was over.

Module 2 - Activity 1: Analysing hands-on workshops


This task implied to attend two workshops and evaluate them by using the analysis grid "Second Life practices in learning and teaching activities" developed by my mentor, Margarita Perez-Garcia (MENON Network, Belgium) and Dr. Steven Warburton (King's College, London, UK) who made it available to all MUVEnation participants.
In order to complete this task, I attended several in-world workshops and chose two to describe and reflect upon. It is very important tp observe others and reflect upon their practices in order to improve our own.


Workshop One

One hour workshop whose aim was to create a lamp and bedside table.

Workshop design: planning and preparation

Spatial design and layout: Emulation of RL. The class was limited to 10 participants, with a individual space for each one to create the objects. Participants were sat on individual chairs. on a Sandbox.

Instructional design: The pre-requisites were stated and also the learning objective, outcome and goal were structured.

Organisation of instructions and discourse: At the end of the class a notecard was provided with all the instructions, so they were pre-prepared.

Physical organization of learning material: The instructor gave instructions through written local chat and asked participants to click on a lamp to get the class supply: some textures for the objects. At the end of the workshop, the instructor gave a notecard with the description of the workshop to each participant.

Business model: The class was free.

Maturity level / Development version: It was tested in advance, I think, because the instructions were very clear and all the participants managed to build the lamp, the bedside table and textured them as well.


Comments: The instructor was very clear, interacted with participants, helped them and everyone managed to get a lamp and a bedside table.


________________________________________

Workshop implementation: Delivery of instruction
Assessment of prior knowledge: None (Basic level)

Pre-prepared activities to meet the knowledge requirements: None

Prior knowledge: Not recalled
Preparation of user interface and viewing controls: No instruction
Technical preparation of participants: None
Conversational flow: Ordered and controlled progressively by behavioural rules, interaction policies, textual codes, scripts and communication tools. the instructor often paused and interacted with the participants helping them out.
Communication dynamics: Tutor / Learner (mostly) and some Tutor / Learner - Learner / Tutor.
Movement of learners and teacher: Constrained sit/position for learners and free movement for teacher.
Presentation of outputs and results: Illustrated at varying of the stages of development. According to the instructions, participants were to see their objects being built and getting a shape, texture... and the other participants' too.
Delivery of learning material: At the beginning of the workshop through a giver device, a lamp next to the instructor.
Use of tools to deliver both content and instructions: Basic SL chat facility and a notecard giver.
Use of media to enhance teaching: Basic use of SL text chat and sense of virtual embodiment.
Concurrent learner activity: Activity exclusively centred within the 3D world.
Personalisation of learning: The instructor helped participants to keep in track and everyone was working at the same pace.
Pedagogical approach: Directive, focused on both concepts and procedures, process oriented.
_________________________________________
Implementation of the workshop: follow up and evaluation
Provision of guidance, suppport and feedback: On demand via local text chat or private IMs.
Monitoring of student progress: Gathering of informal feedback and visualization.
Quality of feedback: Informative and formative.
Assessment model: None.
Comments: The instructor paid attention to the participants, eliciting and claryfing doubts and offered individual help when it was needed. Everyone was able to create the lamp and bedside table what was very satisfying.
____________________________________________________
Implementation of the workshop: recall and transfer of learning
Recapitulation: None, but as it was in written text, participants could check the chat history and get the information they needed.
After session resources: Individual artifacts and a notecard with the instructions for the activity.
After session activities: None
Comments: As it was a basic activity of building an object with four prims and the instructions were clear, the participants understood it and are able to create this object with different sizes and textures, on their own.

About me

The beautiful thing about learning is that no one can take it away from you. B.B. King
Loading...

Followers