Being it my first time in second life, I really didn't know where to start. I thought that changing my appearance would be the first step - only I made a horrible choice of looks and clothing! Fortunately, in my search for an interesting place to visit, I came across the beautiful lady Eydie MacMoragh. I asked her where she got her cool look from, and she guided me to the place where I can get a new outfit. When I chose one that I thought looked good, she told me that that was the outfit new avatars usually choose, and that I looked common! So I went back and made another change of clothes, and this time I told her that I looked good, common or not.
To choose a place to visit, I went to the maps and searched for anything with the prefix 'edu', or 'ed'. I came across EdTech Island Sandbox and Campus. I was lost at first, but Eydie told me that it is a public area where people can build things. She also told me that there are a lot of educational establishments in second life, like NASA's interactive museum.
I think there are great educational opportunities in second life. Not only can classes be conducted entirely virtually, practical classes can also be done in close resemblance to real life classes. A teacher can show students how to, for instance, create a bird house using objects like a hammer or wood. Schools and universities can create their virtual areas, where distance learners can socialize within areas that look similar to, for instance, campus cafeterias.
Monday, 27 April 2009
Kimo (aka Deena) exploring her way through second life
Kimo (aka Deena) looking horrible compared to beautiful Eydie
Kimo looking a bit better - I think!
Sunday, 29 March 2009
Emerging Technologies Google Map
This is the Google map with the origins of the students in the Emerging Technologies class in the MA DTCE of the University of Manchester
View Larger Map
View Larger Map
Monday, 23 March 2009
Texting
Instead of calling a person on his mobile phone, one can send a small text message with a few letters (as opposed to real words) to, for example:
-confirm a meeting (Are you going casino tonight? / Thanx.C u there)
-ask a question (From the last class or everything?)
-ask for directions/phone number
-send a joke or greeting, etc.
I often use text messages instead of calling the person because I want to avoid useless chat, or I am not in the mood of talking. It's also useful when you want to store information that you might otherwise forget if communicated verbally. Text messages are also useful when you want to send information to several people at the same time - just send the same message to 10 people instead of making 10 phonecalls.
Texting created a whole new language. People are usually reluctant to type in a whole word and instead use letters or numbers, and normally drop the vowels off. Popular trends include using 2 instead of 'too' or 'to', and u instead of 'you'. And of course capitalizing nouns is totally out of question in text messages!
Most of the Arabic speakers will also recognize the new 'Englishized' Arabic used in internet chats and text messages. Because we are more comfortable with English letters and Arabic words, we use English to write Arabic. I dont know who created the convention for this language, but its now very common. Some Arabic letters are not present in English so numbers or number-character combinations are used for them. The numbers 2, 3, 7, and 7., all represent Arabic letters.
I find it difficult to write normal English without inserting some of the texting conventions. I sometimes forget to capitalize the 'I', or use 'u' instead of 'you' in formal emails! Will there come a time when this will be normal in even formal communications?
-confirm a meeting (Are you going casino tonight? / Thanx.C u there)
-ask a question (From the last class or everything?)
-ask for directions/phone number
-send a joke or greeting, etc.
I often use text messages instead of calling the person because I want to avoid useless chat, or I am not in the mood of talking. It's also useful when you want to store information that you might otherwise forget if communicated verbally. Text messages are also useful when you want to send information to several people at the same time - just send the same message to 10 people instead of making 10 phonecalls.
Texting created a whole new language. People are usually reluctant to type in a whole word and instead use letters or numbers, and normally drop the vowels off. Popular trends include using 2 instead of 'too' or 'to', and u instead of 'you'. And of course capitalizing nouns is totally out of question in text messages!
Most of the Arabic speakers will also recognize the new 'Englishized' Arabic used in internet chats and text messages. Because we are more comfortable with English letters and Arabic words, we use English to write Arabic. I dont know who created the convention for this language, but its now very common. Some Arabic letters are not present in English so numbers or number-character combinations are used for them. The numbers 2, 3, 7, and 7., all represent Arabic letters.
I find it difficult to write normal English without inserting some of the texting conventions. I sometimes forget to capitalize the 'I', or use 'u' instead of 'you' in formal emails! Will there come a time when this will be normal in even formal communications?
Sunday, 15 March 2009
Some thoughts on open education
The discussions about open educatoin on Alec Couros's blog had many interesting ideas. I found the metaphor of the teacher or educator being the "network sherpa" properly describes the popular idea of who the teacher has become in this digital world. As Professor Curt Bonk mentions, the teacher is now a facilitator/guide/mentor/tutor/expert. The metaphor helps realize these new (and old) roles of the teacher. On the other hand, I find it somehow confusing. If the teacher "knows the terrain", but is lead by the student interest and knowledge, how can he not be the expert? Is there a contradiction when I say that the teacher may not know everything, but must at the same time be able to go in any path the student asks him to go to? I am also referring to the diagramatic representation of the metaphor. A mountain guide either knows one way through the mountains, and thus cannot be lead by the student interests, or know all the ways, and in this case he "is" the expert.
I find the issue of the changing role of a teacher very controversial. I am not a teacher, and enrolled in the MA course to know how to be a teacher in the digital world. When I got to know my colleagues in this program, I thought they had an added advantage of already being teachers who wanted to develop their technological skills and update their teaching methods. Now I think I might have an added advantage since I will start fresh with the new modern teacher role in mind - instead of switching roles and the accompanying confusion this might have.
Another issue I read about in the discussions is the belief that younger teachers may be more resistant to technology than older ones, that is, more authoritarian. This came to me as a surprise, but when I thought about it more, it did make sense to me. Younger teachers know about the technology, and fear that at the start of their careers they may not be the experts anymore. They may be more enthusiastic about proving themselves in their positions rather than updating their skills and methods to suit the digital world that they already know about.
I found that professor Bonk's reply about the digital divide lacked some depth. He simplified everything to simply having a CD containing the contents of whatever information obtained from the Internet. Yes, this does allow information to be distributed, but what about the issues of creativity, collaboration, literacy, and so on? These issues are always stressed on when talking about digital education. Accessing the Internet, being freely able to choose and filter out the information there, synchronous and asynchronous learning, and so on are all aspects of online education, who the under previliged - or people without access to the internet will never experience. So the digital divide is still there. Yes, those people may be able to 'freely' receive information, but what about the rest of the accompanying issues that the others will have. Won't this all increase the digital divide?
I find the issue of the changing role of a teacher very controversial. I am not a teacher, and enrolled in the MA course to know how to be a teacher in the digital world. When I got to know my colleagues in this program, I thought they had an added advantage of already being teachers who wanted to develop their technological skills and update their teaching methods. Now I think I might have an added advantage since I will start fresh with the new modern teacher role in mind - instead of switching roles and the accompanying confusion this might have.
Another issue I read about in the discussions is the belief that younger teachers may be more resistant to technology than older ones, that is, more authoritarian. This came to me as a surprise, but when I thought about it more, it did make sense to me. Younger teachers know about the technology, and fear that at the start of their careers they may not be the experts anymore. They may be more enthusiastic about proving themselves in their positions rather than updating their skills and methods to suit the digital world that they already know about.
I found that professor Bonk's reply about the digital divide lacked some depth. He simplified everything to simply having a CD containing the contents of whatever information obtained from the Internet. Yes, this does allow information to be distributed, but what about the issues of creativity, collaboration, literacy, and so on? These issues are always stressed on when talking about digital education. Accessing the Internet, being freely able to choose and filter out the information there, synchronous and asynchronous learning, and so on are all aspects of online education, who the under previliged - or people without access to the internet will never experience. So the digital divide is still there. Yes, those people may be able to 'freely' receive information, but what about the rest of the accompanying issues that the others will have. Won't this all increase the digital divide?
Sunday, 8 March 2009
Do video games foster intelligence?
When reading about the Herz system of classifying video games, I thought of how each of these classification fits into one (or more) intelligence of the player. This break down can help us realize that video games can readily enhance intelligence, and the application of this idea into education can indeed have positive outcomes.
This area is of particular interest for me because my literature review in the "Development of Educational Technology" course was based on the theory of multiple intelligences and how educational technology (including educational video games) easily and smoothly blend with human intelligence.
I will start by explaining the multiple intelligences, and then move to the game categories provided by the Herz system, and try to fit each with the intelligences it satisfies.
Theory of Multiple Intelligence
Harvard Professor Howard Gardner is the originator of the theory of Multiple Intelligence (MI). The theory is based on the concept of a mind being a collection of experiences and mental representations. The mind’s structure is continuously updated and adjusted as new information is entered, manipulated, and retained. This unique structure of the individual’s mind is what Gardner addresses when he proposes that all humans have varying degrees of the following intelligences:
-linguistic – strong oral and written skills
-logical-mathematical - focus on measurements, results, and tangible objects
-spatial – look up to artists and architects; visual and creative
-musical – ‘audio’ learners; focus on listening and creating patterns and rhythms
-bodily–kinesthetic – enjoy movement and manipulating their surroundings
-interpersonal – interactive learners ; enjoy talking and mingling with the society
-intrapersonal – self aware and self motivated
-naturalistic – always connecting nature with content
-existentialist – focus on the world as a whole and why things operate in the way they do
Individuals’ strengths vary in different intelligences, and being strong is one does not necessarily imply being strong (or weak) in another.
The Herz system categorization
-Action: shooting games and other games that are reaction based
-Adventure : games that require solving logical puzzles to progress through the game's virtual world.
-Fighting: games that include fighting an opponent or a computer-based character
-Puzzle: like Tetris
-Role-playing: games where the player assume the characteristic of a person or a creature
-Simulations: games that include recreation of a place or situation
-Sports: like football, basketball, etc
-Strategy: games where players may recreate historical battles or wars (army games)
I attempted to do the mapping between each game type and the intelligence it satisfies. There maybe some overlap, or conditions where certain intelligences should be added, but I believe this is satisfactory at the basic level.
Action-------->Bodily-kinesthetic
Adventure----->Logical-mathematical
Fighting------>Bodily-kinesthetic
Puzzle-------->Logical-mathematical, Linguistic
Role-playing-->Linguistic, interpersonal, intrapersonal
Simulation---->Spatial, existentialist
Sport--------->Bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal
Strategy------>Logical-mathematical
Extensive research has been done which "indicates that certain types of popular computer games actually train people in critical business skill areas, such as risk taking, multitasking, and leadership.These are all related to the personal intelligences" (James 2006). Furthermore, many college students have developed high proficiency in computer games, and bringing out the gaming skills of the students by including games in their education may help them develop in the area of intrapersonal intelligence. Also, interpersonal intelligence can be developed with all game categories that include more than one player.
All in all, the break down of the intelligences into the categories proposed by Gardner provides us with a different way of evaluating the importance of games in developing the brain. This realization can be used as a guideline for incorporating video games inside the classroom.
Sources:
Ceangal, John Kirriemuir and McFarlane, Angela (2004): "Literature Review in Games and Learning".
McCoog, Ian J (Sept-Oct 2007): "Integrated Instruction: Multiple Intelligences and Technology", The Clearing House 81/1, pp. 25 - 28.
Muncy, James A. (2006): "Implications of Contemporary Intelligence Theories to Marketing Education", Journal of Education for Business pp 301-306
Weiss, Ruth Palombo (Sept 2000): "Howard Gardner Talks about Technology", Training & Development 54/9 pp. 52-56.
This area is of particular interest for me because my literature review in the "Development of Educational Technology" course was based on the theory of multiple intelligences and how educational technology (including educational video games) easily and smoothly blend with human intelligence.
I will start by explaining the multiple intelligences, and then move to the game categories provided by the Herz system, and try to fit each with the intelligences it satisfies.
Theory of Multiple Intelligence
Harvard Professor Howard Gardner is the originator of the theory of Multiple Intelligence (MI). The theory is based on the concept of a mind being a collection of experiences and mental representations. The mind’s structure is continuously updated and adjusted as new information is entered, manipulated, and retained. This unique structure of the individual’s mind is what Gardner addresses when he proposes that all humans have varying degrees of the following intelligences:
-linguistic – strong oral and written skills
-logical-mathematical - focus on measurements, results, and tangible objects
-spatial – look up to artists and architects; visual and creative
-musical – ‘audio’ learners; focus on listening and creating patterns and rhythms
-bodily–kinesthetic – enjoy movement and manipulating their surroundings
-interpersonal – interactive learners ; enjoy talking and mingling with the society
-intrapersonal – self aware and self motivated
-naturalistic – always connecting nature with content
-existentialist – focus on the world as a whole and why things operate in the way they do
Individuals’ strengths vary in different intelligences, and being strong is one does not necessarily imply being strong (or weak) in another.
The Herz system categorization
-Action: shooting games and other games that are reaction based
-Adventure : games that require solving logical puzzles to progress through the game's virtual world.
-Fighting: games that include fighting an opponent or a computer-based character
-Puzzle: like Tetris
-Role-playing: games where the player assume the characteristic of a person or a creature
-Simulations: games that include recreation of a place or situation
-Sports: like football, basketball, etc
-Strategy: games where players may recreate historical battles or wars (army games)
I attempted to do the mapping between each game type and the intelligence it satisfies. There maybe some overlap, or conditions where certain intelligences should be added, but I believe this is satisfactory at the basic level.
Action-------->Bodily-kinesthetic
Adventure----->Logical-mathematical
Fighting------>Bodily-kinesthetic
Puzzle-------->Logical-mathematical, Linguistic
Role-playing-->Linguistic, interpersonal, intrapersonal
Simulation---->Spatial, existentialist
Sport--------->Bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal
Strategy------>Logical-mathematical
Extensive research has been done which "indicates that certain types of popular computer games actually train people in critical business skill areas, such as risk taking, multitasking, and leadership.These are all related to the personal intelligences" (James 2006). Furthermore, many college students have developed high proficiency in computer games, and bringing out the gaming skills of the students by including games in their education may help them develop in the area of intrapersonal intelligence. Also, interpersonal intelligence can be developed with all game categories that include more than one player.
All in all, the break down of the intelligences into the categories proposed by Gardner provides us with a different way of evaluating the importance of games in developing the brain. This realization can be used as a guideline for incorporating video games inside the classroom.
Sources:
Ceangal, John Kirriemuir and McFarlane, Angela (2004): "Literature Review in Games and Learning".
McCoog, Ian J (Sept-Oct 2007): "Integrated Instruction: Multiple Intelligences and Technology", The Clearing House 81/1, pp. 25 - 28.
Muncy, James A. (2006): "Implications of Contemporary Intelligence Theories to Marketing Education", Journal of Education for Business pp 301-306
Weiss, Ruth Palombo (Sept 2000): "Howard Gardner Talks about Technology", Training & Development 54/9 pp. 52-56.
Saturday, 28 February 2009
Response to Guardian's article on social networking sites
I wonder, but wasn't it always the case that adults blame technologies for distancing away their children and making them more selfish with shorter attention spans and therefor less achievement in schools? Isn't this exactly what was said about video games, playstations, televisions, email, mirc, msn and icq? I have heard a lot of talk similar to this around my parents and family;
"Video games makes you more violent!"
"Watching TV for over an hour destroys your brains and eyes!"
"Watch out, you can meet people on ICQ who will easily manipulate your thoughts, you won't be able to think anymore", etc.
I think all of you heard similar comments (or gave them, depending on your age!)
Well, all what Lady Greenfield 'speculates' may be correct, but not on social networking sites in specific. Isn't too much of anything (addiction) bad? I may be wrong but her analogies make her sound somewhat like a hopeless romance (caring for the princess?!!) I couldn't quite relate this. If the game was a board game instead of a digital game, will I then care about the princess? Perhaps she (or the writer) should have backed up her arguments with research sources or examples - because it sounds to me like stuff that the older generation always says about the newer one.
I do believe that with more exposure to the new technologies, one's reactions tend to become different (perhaps yes, I sense it a lot when I ask my husband a question and if he takes more than two seconds to answer I start whining about him ignoring me). But isn't this also a feature in everything in the world around us. Think of old songs and new songs, old movies and new movies. The decrease of emotional depth is not only because of the child's exposure to social networking sites - I feel this is over simplified. We have to think of other changes, such as the growing economic pressure that parents now face which makes little time available for their children.
Children's (and adult's) minds are different now than previous generations, but this has always been the case. Life is becoming more challenging on all levels. With the quickening pace of life, people are becoming more individualistic and less romantic, but this is an outcome of various changes in life, and not just 'facebook' or 'Myspace'.
"Video games makes you more violent!"
"Watching TV for over an hour destroys your brains and eyes!"
"Watch out, you can meet people on ICQ who will easily manipulate your thoughts, you won't be able to think anymore", etc.
I think all of you heard similar comments (or gave them, depending on your age!)
Well, all what Lady Greenfield 'speculates' may be correct, but not on social networking sites in specific. Isn't too much of anything (addiction) bad? I may be wrong but her analogies make her sound somewhat like a hopeless romance (caring for the princess?!!) I couldn't quite relate this. If the game was a board game instead of a digital game, will I then care about the princess? Perhaps she (or the writer) should have backed up her arguments with research sources or examples - because it sounds to me like stuff that the older generation always says about the newer one.
I do believe that with more exposure to the new technologies, one's reactions tend to become different (perhaps yes, I sense it a lot when I ask my husband a question and if he takes more than two seconds to answer I start whining about him ignoring me). But isn't this also a feature in everything in the world around us. Think of old songs and new songs, old movies and new movies. The decrease of emotional depth is not only because of the child's exposure to social networking sites - I feel this is over simplified. We have to think of other changes, such as the growing economic pressure that parents now face which makes little time available for their children.
Children's (and adult's) minds are different now than previous generations, but this has always been the case. Life is becoming more challenging on all levels. With the quickening pace of life, people are becoming more individualistic and less romantic, but this is an outcome of various changes in life, and not just 'facebook' or 'Myspace'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
