Integrating Second Life into a UT Austin Freshman English Course

1. Integrating Second Life into a UT Austin Freshman English Course NMC Conference, November 9, 2006

2. Michael Mayrath • Educational Psychology Ph.D. student The University of Texas at Austin • Graduate Research Assistant Division of Instructional Innovation & Assessment (DIIA)

3. Agenda • Tour: DIIA, UT Austin’s Second Life Island, SL Pilot Project • Research & Evaluation Methodology • Results, Conclusions, Future Directions

4. Tour: • DIIA • UT Austin’s Second Life island • SL Pilot project

5. DIIA(Division of Instructional Innovation and Assessment) • one DIIA core objective: identify, explore, and research the technological horizon • DIIA starts with assessment: project criteria • games at UT Austin? • pilot Second Life: 1 year

6. DIIA support • Instructional Assessment Group • Teaching and Learning Excellence Group • Instructional Technology Group • technical support

7. DIIA deliverables • SL island • account setup • training sessions • instruction manual • instructional consultation

8. Second Life • Multi-User Virtual Environment (MUVE) • 1.2 million total SL residents • Harvard, Tennessee, Pepperdine, Ball State, and Central Missouri State

9. UT’s Second Life island • 16-acre private island • safe for students • replicas of buildings on UT Austin campus • freedom for students to build anywhere

10. Instructional setting for pilot • English course: Composition & Reading in World Literature • 18 Plan II freshmen • Fall 2006 — Spring 2007 • technology-oriented professor

11. Instructional objectives • discovery learning • fall goal: personal vision statement • spring goal: leadership vision statement • develop unity in verbal and visual rhetoric • compare UT Austin to other universities

12. Instructional activities in SL • personal roadmap • campus master plan • two social hours per week

13. Implementation • 8/30 - Course started • 8/31 - Pre-surveys e-mailed • 9/5 - 1st training • 9/7 - 2nd training • 9/12 - 1st SL assignment due (Roadmap) • 11/30 - 2nd SL assignment due (Campus)

14. Research & Evaluation Methodology

15. Research questions • Are students more engaged in a course when SL is used for instructional activities? • How does students’ motivation in the course change over the year? • How do students’ beliefs, attitudes, and self-confidence regarding technology affect their desire to complete assignments in SL?

16. Evaluation questions • How much support is needed to implement SL? • What types of support are required? • What do students like and dislike about SL? • How difficult is it to learn SL? • What is the future for using SL at UT Austin?

17. Mixed methods approach • Quantitative methods: • Surveys on 8/30/06 (pre), 11/22/06 (mid), and 4/13/07 (post) • Qualitative methods: • Interviews • Observations • Student reaction essays

18. Mixed methods study Surveys • writing confidence • motivation while writing • confidence in using technology • feelings about technology Response data analyzed for statistically significant gains

19. Quantitative methods: Surveys Writing Confidence Strongly disagree ↔ Strongly agree “I am able to … • write using correct grammar.” • write a 20-page term paper.” • write a novel.”

20. Quantitative methods: Surveys Motivation while Writing Strongly disagree ↔ Strongly agree “When writing a paper for school … • I have a sense of control over what I am writing.” • I always start out with a clear goal of what I want to write.”

21. Quantitative methods: Surveys Confidence in using technology Never done it ↔ Strongly disagree ↔ Strongly agree “I feel confident … • searching the Web using Google or Yahoo.” • playing virtual world games such as Second Life or SIM City.” • creating/modifying your character in a game.” • creating 3-D images.”

22. Quantitative methods: Surveys Feelings about technology Strongly disagree ↔ Strongly agree • I would rather use Word to write than paper. • I like it when my instructor uses PowerPoint in class. • I like playing video games.

23. Qualitative methods: Interviews • five students: high/low random selection • November 2006 & April 2007 • interviews recorded, transcribed, and analyzed • 34 questions

24. Qualitative methods: Interviews Questions • How has SL affected your interest in the course? • Do you feel like you have control over what you do in SL? • What frustrations have you experienced working in SL? • What do you like about working in SL?

25. Qualitative methods Observations • on-going throughout the year Student reaction essays • SL & writing

26. Preliminary Results, Conclusions, Future Directions

27. Results Writing confidence survey • Students were very confident in their writing ability. Motivation while writing survey • Students believed they had skills to match challenges. • Students reported they had to work to concentrate on writing.

28. Results Confidence in using technology survey • Students were very confident in using e-mail, the Internet, Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. • Students were not confident in using graphics programs, creating Web pages, and programming.

29. Results Feelings about technology survey • Students liked using technology in the classroom and in their work. • Students expressed mixed feelings about gaming. • 48% of the students reported not playing computer games.

30. Results Interviews • “[The] most frustrating thing is not having a Control-Z key to undo what you just did.” • “I think the competition is a good thing. It pushes a person can do.” • “Our class is super competitive.”

31. Results Observations • competition for extra credit • student anxiety and frustration • training necessary for specific activities • hand-outs with step-by-step instructions

32. Results Student Reaction Essays • “Just as a SL building’s tiny details and elements must all add up to a unified impression, a piece of writing must be composed from support and linked components.” • “Having little to no experience in gaming or computer programming, SL proved to be a real challenge for me. To be completely honest, I found the SL project to be more of a nuisance than an integral part of my project.”

33. Conclusions • Research questions addressed • students’ engagement in course • students’ motivation in course • role of students’ attitudes on their use of SL • Evaluation questions addressed • extent of support needed • type of support needed • students’ frustrations with SL • students’ likes concerning SL • difficulty of learning SL • future of SL at UT Austin

34. Conclusions Research question: Are students more engaged in a course when SL is used for instructional activities? Students’ engagement aided by • anchoring activities in learning context • training and support for SL activities • avoiding too much competition

35. Conclusions Research question: How does students’ motivation toward the course change over the year? • SL frustration may arise • extra credit competition worrisome • competition may grow too heated

36. Conclusions Research question: How do students’ beliefs, attitudes, and self-confidence toward technology affect their motivation to participate in SL? • like technology in the classroom • high confidence in their tech skills • motivation drops if SL gets frustrating

37. Conclusions Evaluation question: How much support is needed to implement SL in a course? Dependent upon … • instructional activity • students’ proficiency in SL skills • professor’s proficiency in SL skills

38. Conclusions Evaluation question: What types of support are required? Dependent upon … • students • faculty • independent evaluation

39. Conclusions Evaluation question: What frustrations do students experience using SL? • ownership and group issues • building • activities not anchored in class context

40. Conclusions Evaluation question: What do students like about SL? • customizing their avatar • socializing in SL • reflecting on what they have created

41. Conclusions Evaluation question: How difficult is it for students to learn how to use SL? • steep learning curve (for our pilot) • training • step-by-step handouts

42. Future of SL at UT Austin • expand SL applications at UT • year-long course provides an advantage • community building takes time • continued assessment • problem-based learning

43. Future of SL at UT Austin • student programming in spring 2007 • continue data collection • design other UT Austin SL opportunities • extend literature on educational gaming

44. Michael Mayrath mmayrath@mail.utexas.edu Questions?