Virtual Worlds and the Context of Context (Post on Request)

 

Author: Christopher R. Keesey

Project Manager Ohio University Without Boundaries

Many educators and training professionals today stand fully footed at the crest of Web 2.0 and have begun preparing to take the step into the still somewhat unknown abyss of what will be Web 3.0.  It’s an exciting step but still very ill defined. It is first important to remember that these are only marketing buzz phrases and can mean different things to different people depending on the context within which that person utilizes the Web.  For educators, one feature of the next generation of Internet will be a fully realized model of how context in a learning experience is generated and subsequently changed and augmented by both instructors and learners. 

One contextual creation tool that is now in the toolbox of many educators is virtual social world applications. Amongst these virtual worlds, Second Life has become the most widely utilized and recognized.  For those who might have somehow missed the abundant press, presentations and water cooler talk on virtual worlds and specifically Second Life here is a quick definition:  Second Life is a 3-dimensional, user-defined world of general use in which people can interact, play, LEARN, do business, and otherwise communicate and collaborate.  Ohio University Without Boundaries has been dedicated to exploring Virtual Worlds and specifically Second Life in the context of creating better learning experiences and subsequently better learning since 2006.

So, what is context? On the surface, it seems like a simple question. At the same time, it is a question that will begin to tie your head in a knot as you subsequently, in defining the word, must define the context within which you will be giving the definition.  Here is the static dictionary definition of the word:

(n) context, linguistic context, context of use (discourse that surrounds a language unit and helps to determine its interpretation)

(n) context, circumstance, setting (the set of facts or circumstances that surround a situation or event) “the historical context”

A static definition does us little good for the purposes of this discussion.  In such, for this discussion the context for defining the word context is learning. Here is a more applicable and palatable definition of the word context in the framework of learning from Robby Robson (2008) at reusablelearning.org:

Learning makes use of language, relies on culture, requires prior knowledge and experience and depends on the situation in which it takes place. If the dream of technology-assisted learning is to get just the right stuff to the right person at the right time in the right way (Hodgins, 2002), then context is what determines the value of a learning resource.

Further, J.C. Herz (2005) expands on context as follows:

There is a construction of context that, to some degree, is the purpose of higher learning: you don’t simply memorize the facts, you learn how to learn; you learn how to construct new context with the information you receive. That is the hallmark of a broadly educated person.(p. 32)

Umair Haque (2008) in his paper “User Generated Context” makes an interesting observation on context.  He sees most web users and contributors today as context creators as opposed to content creators. Those of us heavily involved in everyday Web publishing are actually creating context around a smaller number of main informational nodes and Web 2.0 technologies allow for a more fluid individualized context.  Next generation technologies will build on this ability and add the richness and immersive qualities of 3-D to a learner’s ability to construct context around these main informational nodes. 

Now that we have placed context as a term in its proper context, it is as important that we put Virtual Worlds, specifically, Second Life in its proper context as a teaching/training/learning environment.  First, Second Life is one of many virtual worlds.  Of these worlds, some are targeting adult populations and many more are targeting youth.  According to an August 22, 2008 Virtual Worlds Management report, 150 Youth-Oriented Worlds are currently live or in development. There are also other direct competitors to Second Life that target more of the adult audience.  Those include Entropia Universe, IMVU, There, Active Worlds, Google Lively, Open Life Grid and Kaneva amongst others.  The exploding bevy of different platforms has sparked a vigorous discussion on interoperability amongst platforms. That however is a very large topic for another paper.

If we put virtual worlds and specifically Second Life into proper historical context it might best be compared to the very early days of the Internet.  Changes in the virtual world landscape and subsequently the capabilities afforded an instructor or student within these worlds and how they mash with other existing sources of information and context are changing rapidly; so rapidly in fact that it becomes difficult to write on features, opportunities and limitations of any particular virtual world as this information is very likely to quickly become obsolete by feature enhancements or new players in the market.

The aforementioned numbers of virtual world platforms demonstrate notable market trends.  A market trend however is not a basis for widespread adoption of any tool for learning. It is important to ask, why are virtual worlds an effective learning environment?  There are many real and compelling reasons why learning in a virtual world can be valuable.  Dr. Tony O’Driscoll (2007) of IBM has come up with perhaps the most focused list of how virtual social worlds can provide us with a new “freedom in learning.”  This list is as follows:

Flow – Balancing challenge and boredom.

Repetition – Allowing learners to try and try again.

Experimentation – Allowing avatars to experience anything they want to experience.

Engagement

Doing – Truly work-based learning.

Observing – What you can’t do, you can observe.

Motivation – Through all aforementioned points multiple teachable moments can be engineered.

Having now put the term context into its proper context and virtual worlds into context, as a tool and historically, it is important to also address content and specifically to address content by putting it in its proper modern framework and relationship to learning.  Content and context are intimately intertwined in a carefully crafted dance that must occur to facilitate optimal transfer of knowledge.  We often hear tired consultant buzz phrases around the meanings and relationships of the two words such as the following: “If content is king then context is the kingdom.”  It’s not that the phrase isn’t necessarily accurate; it just falls short of explaining why context is so important.   

Rick Nigol (2007) of eLearning Campus says it very well:

…We must move past the presentation of content to the creation of context wherein learners can apply and reflect upon the new knowledge they encounter. It is a matter of moving beyond “knowing” something to being able to do something with this new knowledge…(Nigol, 2007)

The sheer volume of content that is available through multiple sources on the Internet and other electronic sources can’t be overstated. Google is now to the human brain what an external hard drive is to a computer with limited hard drive space. As long as there is proper qualification and filtering of these vast stores of information, such wealth in content provides educators with the opportunity to concentrate more efforts on creating better context. It is better context that drives better just-in-time inquiry of our wealth of content resources.

Mass quantities of existing content and acceptance of the importance of context to a learning experience are fairly self-evident.  The freedom in learning defined by Tony O’Driscoll is compelling.   Can we however utilize “context” as a justification in utilization of virtual worlds for more effective learning experiences?  We first need to answer the following:  Which context were we talking about?

Tessmer & Richey (1997) define three contextual types: Orienting Context, Instructional Context and Transfer or “payoff” context. 

The orienting context is that which takes place before an actual learning event.  This orienting context can have a great deal of bearing on subsequent context in determining the motivation that learning brings into the instructional context.

The instructional context is that which is directly involved in the delivery, delivery format, delivery platforms and other immediate and more clear-cut factors outside of the learner around delivery of a learning experience.  Finally the transfer context is the environment in which the learning will be applied. 

According to Tessmer & Richey (1997), on-the-job-training can blur the lines between instructional and transfer context and make the borders of the transfer context harder to discern. Similarly it can be stated that a blurring of the lines between instructional context and transfer context would occur in simulation style learning environments such as those that can be developed and delivered in virtual world applications.

The richer presentation and collaboration opportunities provided by a virtual world can recreate surprisingly realistic experiences on multiple levels from social, cultural, physical and physiological.  Accurate recreations of real life frames of reference in a virtual world can allow for a greater connection to concepts as they relate to lives, work and ultimately the payoff context.  However, it is worth cautioning that over-contextualization was studied in case-base and action-based learning and was found to sometimes negatively affect flexible transfer to new situations. (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2000) It would be the instructor’s responsibility to ensure that over contextualization was not preventing effective transfer through building additional cases or exercises with a slightly different instructional context.  An instructor might also engage in additional problem solving exercises where learners are presented with a series of “but what it this had happened” situations.  Finally, cases or problems could be generalized to a degree that any solution created would not apply to simply one context. (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2000)

Overall, Virtual Worlds are a very powerful tool that should be a part of an educator’s toolkit. These 3-D applications provide an immersive means for instructors, trainers and learners to create dynamic and individualized context that can enhance motivation and engagement and just-in-time inquiry of massive stores of content that are now available to learners.  The availability of mass quantities of content now enables instructors to concentrate more on creating better context for their learning experiences.  Advances in the ability to structure very powerful context through virtual social worlds should not however be relied upon as a magic pill for effective learning. The onus is still on the instructor/trainer to properly frame problems and cases and provide reflection opportunities to ensure that over contextualization does not affect flexible transfer of knowledge.

Works Cited

1.Bransford, J. D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R., Eds.(2000). How People Learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC, National Academy Press.

2.Haque, U. (2008). User Generated Context, London, Havas Media Lab.

3.Herz, J. C. (2005). The Space Between: Creating a context for learning. Educause Review, 40 (3), 30-39.

4.Hoadley, C. (2002). Creating context: Design-based research in creating and understanding CSCL. Proceedings for Computer Support for Cooperative Learning, Boulder Colorado.

5.Hobbs, M., Brown, E., & Gordon, M. (2006). Using a virtual world for transferable skills in gaming education. The Higher Education Academy, ITALICS, 5 (3).

6.Hodgins, H. W. (2000). The future of learning objects. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects. (pp. 281-298). Bloomington, Indiana. Agency for Instructional Technology/Association for Educational Communications & Technology.

7.Nigol, R. (2007). Context is King!. Retrieved October 2, 2008, from http://breakthroughelearning.com/2007/10/context-is-king.html.

8.O’Driscoll, T. (2007). Virtual social worlds and the future of learning. Retrieved October 1, 2008 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v+)@jY4UkPbAc.

9.Robson, R. (n.d.). Context & Pedagogy. Retrieved October 1, 2008 from http://www.reusablelearning.org/reuse/context.html.

10.Tessmer, M. & Richey, R. C. (1997). The role of context in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development 45 (2) 85-115.

11.Williams, T. (2008). 150+ Youth oriented virtual worlds now live or developing. Retrieved October 1, 2008 from http://www.virtualworldsmanagement.com/2008/youthworlds0808.html.