LEARNER-INSTRUCTOR INTERACTION

WITHIN UNIVERSITY-COMMUNITY

PARTNERSHIPS: THE SAMPLES FROM SECOND LIFE

(SL)Nil GÖKSEL CANBEKAnadolu University / Turkey

Dr. Gülsün KURUBACAKAnadolu University / Turkey

AECT 2011 International Convention11.11. 2011 Jacksonville, Florida

11

22

INTRODUCTIONResearch QuestionPURPOSESIGNIFICANCE /LIMITATIONSTHEORETICAL BACKGROUNDMETHODOLOGYResearch ModelParticipants Data CollectionData AnalysisFINDINGS & DISCUSSIONCONCLUSION & SUGGESTIONS

PRESENTATION OUTLINE

SEMANTICS OF INFORMATION CONNECTIONS

Web 1.0_Web 2.0_Web 3.0

http://www.webteknolojileri.com33

10 Enterprices of Web 2.0

16-24 (youngsters)

16-40 (youngsters & adults)

20-25 ve 16-50 (age scale)

10-80 (general)

16 – 24 (youngsters)

16 - 30 (tech-savvy)

16 - 80 (general)

20-40 (tech-savvy)

20 - 40 (tech-savvy)

13 - 40 (youngsters & adults)

www.bildirgec.org44

WEB 2.0: SL

www.moresay.com...200901secondlife.jpg

16 - 30 (tech-savvy)

10-80 (general) 16-40 (youngsters & adults)

13 - 40 (youngsters & adults)

16 - 24 (youngsters)

20 - 40 (tech-savvy)

20-40 (tech-savvy)

16-24 (youngsters)

20-25 ve 16-50 age scale

55

INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION

ResearchResearch Question Questiona qualitative case study aiming to determine the views of experts of distance education

learner-instructor interaction in SL •within UCPs•within the frame of Mindtool Model (Jonassen, 1996) Interaction-Communication Theory (Holmberg, 1989)

66

the virtual reality is evaluated with the model of SL

PURPOSE

Evaluating SL within UCPs

1. Community Socialization within UCPs (academic life, study, research, professional social process)

2. Supporting Critical Thinking for Active Learning

3. Structured Mixed (visual, literary, oral) Data Collection

77

Discussing SL’s digital communities within individual and collaborative

activities

SIGNIFICANCE

eLearnerseLearners; ; ResearchersResearchers; Institutions, UCPs; Institutions, UCPs

LIMITATIONS Learner-course owner

instruction within UCPs Data received from experts of

SL via semi- structured and open ended survey questions

Data evaluated according to Mindtool Model (Jonassen, 1996) Interaction-

CommunicationTheory (Holmberg, 1989)

88

2323

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

THEORETICAL MATRIX

2424

Communication Learning

INTERACTION-COMMUNICATION THEORY (HOLMBERG)

FOUNDATIONS

Learning Environmen

ts

Collaboration

Study Motivation (Learning Habits)

Individual Activity

Sense of

Belonging

constructing knowledge/meaningful

learning (mindtool

usage)

technology literacy (gaining

experinece)

cognitive learning

strategies/

Interaction

Individual Education/

Active schooling

adaptation (engaging the

mind)

managing learning

Semantic Web

Authentic Learning

(real-world task)

Critical Thinking

Individual participation (Conversational Learners)

interactive communicati

on

affective learning with values+emotions+attitude

s

Social Integration

MIN

DT

OO

L M

OD

EL

(JO

NA

SS

EN

)

WEB 2.0

Communication Learning

INTERACTION-COMMUNICATION THEORY (HOLMBERG)

FOUNDATIONS Cognitive learning

strategies

Collaboration in Social Networking

of SL

(Study Motivation)

Learning Habits (Deep Learning)

Collaborative Learning

(Sense

of

Belonging)

constructing knowledge/

meaningful learning

(mindtool usage) with SL Mindtool Critical

Thinking

Learner

Course Owner Interaction

Inert Knowledge

LLL

within

UCPs

MIN

DT

OO

L M

OD

EL

(J

ON

AS

SE

N)

SL

1111

1212

METHODOLOGY-i

2727

METHODOLOGY-ii

RESEARCH MODELQualitative Study/ Purposeful Sampling

PARTICIPANTSParticipants with min.3 years experience in DE

International Participation /Total: 4 participants

DATA COLLECTION semi-structured, open-ended survey questionsobservation document analysis (Patton, 2002)

DATA ANALYSISformulating datadetermining joint themes/ sending to D.E.

experts triangulation/ data acquisition (Berg, 1998; Creswell, 2005;

Patton, 1999)

comparing / finalizing main themesreporting

1414

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONFINDINGS AND DISCUSSION--iiFINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONFINDINGS AND DISCUSSION--ii

Dynamic interaction/community socialization

learner-learner learner-course owner learner-milieu interaction curriculum (learning & communication) avatar/learner centered design a clear definition on social learning

process operative multicultural learning

structures

inadequate sub platforms chat rooms user groups multi user games unproductive learning outcomes/

collaborative tasks inadequacy in providing file

sharing, IM prompt feedback

1515

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION-ii

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION-ii

ICT Tools/plug-in applicationsvideo conferencevoice IPwikione way guided education X collaborative educationsurface learning (Holmberg, 1989) X deep learning

1616

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION-iii

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION-iii

The SL platform should be enriched with effective and supportive Web 2.0 tools;The inadequacy in providing file sharing, IM should be omitted;Convenient curriculum and planned content should be taken into great consideration in course design;Diverse troubles confronting e-learning should be handled by dynamic researches of SL;The online courses systems should include both independent and collective schooling that foster LLL;

1717

CONCLUSION AND CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONSSUGGESTIONS CONCLUSION AND CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONSSUGGESTIONS

The learning experiences should be incentive; Self-centered and collective activities built upon

creative thinking should be formed; Interactive communication should be provided

in SL network; Joint sources should be clustered for extensive

data exchange; Problem, project and research based activities

should be provided.

1818

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

www.popsci.com...your-second-life

1919

Thank you for your attention!

Email: ngoksel@anadolu.edu.tr SL Avatar: Nile Audion Skype: nilgokselcanbek