Using A Mediated Environments Reference Model To Evaluate Learning
Download as PPT, PDF1 like340 views
The document discusses the application of a mediated environments reference model to assess learners' experiences in virtual environments, particularly in the context of the Theatron project. It highlights the complexities involved in structuring evaluations of mediated environments, emphasizing the need for clarity in terminology and consideration of technology's role in learning activities. The conclusions indicate that while the model is valuable, further refinement is needed for effective application.
![Contact details eportfolio: http://go.warwick.ac.uk/ep-edrfap Slides: http://www.slideshare.net/markchilds Email: [email_address] Blog: http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/markchilds Machinima: http://youtube.com/user/arcp59 SL Name: Gann McGann](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/using-a-mediated-environments-reference-model-to-evaluate-v2-1210941521462102-9/85/Using-A-Mediated-Environments-Reference-Model-To-Evaluate-Learning-20-320.jpg)
Using A Mediated Environments Reference Model To Evaluate Learning
- 1. Using a Mediated Environments Reference Model to evaluate learners' experiences of Second Life Mark Childs Institute of Education, University of Warwick
- 2. Using a Mediated Environments Reference Model to evaluate learners' experiences of Second Life Mark Childs Institute of Education, University of Warwick
- 3. Outline The Theatron Project The Mediated Environments Reference Model Preliminary Evaluation Reflections
- 4. Epidavros
- 7. Mediated Environments Diagram from Steuer ,1992; 8 “ mediated environments” enable participants that are separated by distance to communicate synchronously through a mediated shared space Zhao, 2003; 445 “ information is not transmitted from sender to receiver; rather mediated environments are created and then experienced” (Steuer, 1995; 37)
- 8. Why a MERM? The need To make sense of the literature To structure the evaluation To communicate the findings The issues No map Multiple disciplines Inconsistent terminology
- 9. Newman (2005) de Freitas and Oliver (2006; 253) Zeltzer (1990) Sheridan, 1992; 121-122 Steuer (1995; 40) Naimark, 1990 Dreyfus (2000; 57) Kim and Biocca 1997 Garrison, Anderson and Archer, 2000 Becker and Mark (2002; 29) IJsselsteijn (2005; 9) Biocca, 1997 Knudsen, 2004; 43 Bailey, 2007; 24 Prensky, 2001;2 Heeter (1995; 200) Badique et al (2002, 1157) Darken and Peterson, 2002; 494 Bowman, 2002; 283 Bennett and Peachey, 2007 Bennetsen (2006) Mor et al (2006) Salmon (2004) Heeter, (1992) Savin-Baden (2008)
- 11. Experience
- 15. Initial impressions Copresence with other performers Conveyed through voice (≡ radio) Develops as experience of other performers increases (more so than platform?) Social presence of performers Conveyed through voice (and ability) Enhanced through gestures
- 16. Initial impressions Presence Limited by responsiveness of avatars Limited by delay (compensated by experience) Moving one’s avatar ≡ puppetry Works for performances where technology foregrounded (cf. telematic performance)
- 17. Reflections MERM useful for developing terminology Structuring questions and responses – a “mediating form of representation” Need to consider more Distinction in learning activities between whether or not technology is foregrounded Relationship between participant and avatar (degree of automation)
- 18. Conclusion (so far)
- 19. Conclusion (so far) Reference models are essential, but this one needs a bit more work
- 20. Contact details eportfolio: http://go.warwick.ac.uk/ep-edrfap Slides: http://www.slideshare.net/markchilds Email: [email_address] Blog: http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/markchilds Machinima: http://youtube.com/user/arcp59 SL Name: Gann McGann