Learning in 3D reading group
Led by Hans de Zwart, Learning Innovation Manager, Shell Plc
Summary – Chapter 5 (part 1)
This summary is going to represent something of an experiment for me.
- It is deliberately not comprehensive (& not just because this has been a hastily planned exercise!)
- I am choosing to focus only on the aspects to which I am drawn.
- For a comprehensive breakdown, I defer to the text under discussion
- In my note-taking for chapter 5, I have tried to be consistent with the metatags that are used to indicate the topics and categories that I have chosen to focus on.
It is my intention to incorporate these into twitter & blog entries as #tags.
- Two topics that have recurred during the progress of our group have been identified as requiring further work during our analysis and discussions. andI have sought to notice and make reference to instances in chapter 5 that help me with my understanding of these:
- Understanding the ‘visceral’ in the context of immersive, 3D learning.
- Identifying what is uniquely valuable about immersive, 3D learning.
- An invitation/survey to immerse & get ‘visceral’ together.
My tag definitions are as follows:
Wrong People, Tools, Framework or Technology
There are numerous instances where obstacles or problems for a particular topic is raised by the text. In many of these, it is my understanding that they are simply a result of #WPTFT and should not, therefore, be significant obstacles.
Suspension of disbelief. A key factor in influencing the degree of immersion of the learner.
I am interested in how, as we progress our research and analysis of and around the text, many of the recurring ideas and themes connect with a notion of proto-theatre e.g. storytelling, narrative, context, identification, agency (actors/acting).
I will use this to tag examples of this.
#Visceral, #Unique & #Value
Per the’ two topics’, above.
Instances where immersive, 3D learning detracts or is more deficient than flatland learning.
Let’s first just recap the Archetypes
- Avatar Persona
- Role Play
- Scavenger Hunt
- Guided Tour
- Operational Application
- Conceptual Orienteering
- Critical Incident
- Group Forums
- Social Networking
There are some potential archetypes that have not been included, this is because they can be and often are incorporated across all of the archetypes e.g. Time-based – such as a timer limiting the time permitted to complete the activity or Assessments which could be included within an activity based on any of the Archetypes.
It is important to note that multiple archetypes may be used within any learning activity.
The purpose of the Archetypes is to help us to provide ‘Practical & actionable learning designs‘
Structure of the chapter
- Origins of the Archetypes
- Examination of each Archetype
- Instructional Goals
- Implications for learning professionals.
Origins of the Archetypes
- The concept for the Archetypes was originally developed in a paper written for the eLearning Guild, Escaping Flatland, written by the Lin3D authors.
- The concept was then developed and formalised by Lesley Scopes of Southampton University and published as: Learning Archetypes as Tools of Cybergogy for 3D Educational Landscape: A Structure for eTeaching in Second Life'[Link].
This created the following structure:
- o Macrostructures
- § Learning Domains
- · Cognitive
- · Dextrous
- · Social
- · Emotional
- o Sub-frames
- § Role play
- § Meshed
- § Peregrination
- § Simulation
- § Assessment & evaluation
- § Learning Domains
- The authors have simplified and broadened the definitions of the Learning Domains by redefining them with the following terms:
- o Agency
- o Exploration
- o Experience
- o Connectedness
We will now take a look at the authors’ definition of the Archetypes…