Workshop implementation: delivery of instruction
Workshop Two
One hour workshop whose aim was to listen to chat channels and communicate between scripts.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment