Student Interactions in Face-to-Face VS Second Life Role-play Activities
Abstract
As a 3D virtual online environment, the educational potential of Second Life has rarely been tapped. This exploratory study compared student interactions in role play activities in both face-to-face environment and Second Life. It was found that student had more interactions in Second Life, and the interactions in Second Life were less focused and more informal. We provided possible explanation of the differences, and discussed the educational implication for this study.
Introduction
Role play is an activity in which students assume the role of another person and improvise behaviors or consider a problem in a particular, pre-defined situation. Students are usually asked in a role play to make a decision, resolve conflict, or act out the conclusion to an unfinished story. While role play is artificial, it actually helps to stimulate reality in the classroom, and is regarded as a recognized teaching practice to encourage active experiential learning (Ments, 1989; Ladousse, 1987).
With the development of online education, online role play is becoming increasingly popular (Bell, 2001a; 2001b; Freeman & Capper, 1999). Studies in text-based online role playing activities suggest that online role play may be an effective method for developing understanding and exploring complex (Freeman & Capper, 1999; Bell, 2001b). In particular, it is found that interaction in online role-play is enhanced through anonymity (Collines and Berge, 1995; Connolly, et al., 1990; Freeman & Capper, 1999; Hartman, et al., 1995). This finding resonates with the research in online discussion, where researchers claimed that anonymity in online discussion actually enhanced the student interactions, because it gave students the confidence to ask question, and more freedom to express their own opinions (Freeman & Barnford, 2004; Sullivan, 2002). This is especially true for students who described themselves as shy or introverted (Bullen, M., 1998). It is unknown, however, whether there were other factors that also contributed to the higher level of interactions.
In addition, most of the studies examined online role play in the text-only online environment. Very few research studied role play in 3-D online environments. Dickey (2003, 2005) explored the role play in a 3-D environment called Active Worlds. It was found that role play in Active Worlds afforded opportunities for experiential learning and situated learning within a collaboration learning environment. But his studies did not explore how students in 3-D online environments may interact differently in the role play as compared to in the face-to-face environment. It is important for educators to be aware of the different nature of interactions in the two environments and what brings the differences. This will help them get a better sense of which form of activity can benefit the learners more under a particular circumstance.
The purpose of this study, therefore, is to describe how students interact in a 3-D online environment and in face-to-face environment, and to explain the why students interact this way. The 3-D environment chosen in this study is Second Life. Second Life is an online virtual world where players can represent themselves as avatars, and interact with each other through various tools that allow them to make gestures, have text-based conversations and so on. Advanced players can also construct objects or create their virtual businesses. As related research literature already recognizes anonymity as one of the factors that contribute to the differences of interactions in the two environments, we are more interested in discovering other factors. Therefore, we intentionally made the role play in Second Life non-anonymous. Our research questions are:
Ÿ In the non-anonymous role playing activities, what are the differences in students' interactions in face-to-face environment and Second Life environment?
Ÿ What are the factors that may contribute to these differences?
Ÿ Do student personality types affect their performance in the two environments? If so, how?
Method
The research design for this study is a qualitative exploratory case study focusing on the differences of in student experiences in role-play activities in the face-to-face environment and Second Life.
Participants
Four undergraduate female students in a TE course volunteered to participate in the study. They were asked to participate in two similar role-play activities, one in the face-to-face environment and the other in Second Life. None of them have much experience with Second Life before. Before the study, the Myers-Briggs Typology Assessment was administered to determine whether each student is introvert or extrovert. Two of the females were identified as being extroverted, and two of the females were identified as being introverted. The researchers did not know, however, during the activities, which females had been identified as such.
Tasks
The four participants of our study were asked to do two role plays, one in face-to-face environment and the other in Second life. All the other students in the classroom were also asked to perform one role play within their own groups. All the role plays had similar scenarios.
Each role play was about a motivational “syndromes” which impact learning. The reason for choosing these topics was they were in line with the curriculum scope and sequence of the course. All activities had a “script,” in which possible dialogue was suggested to the participants in the face-to-face and the Second Life role plays. It was recommended that they try to adhere to the script as much as possible, to attempt to be convincing in their portrayal of the motivational syndrome. No time limit was placed on either activity by the researcher. All participants were allowed to take creative license in their choice of methods to achieve the desired result in both the face-to-face and Second Life role playing activities.
The same four students participated in the face-to-face role playing activity and the Second Life activity. All students assumed similar roles (student, teacher, peer, narrator) in both activities, with the exception of the elimination of the narrator role in Second Life. In Second Life, the participant who played the narrator in the face-to-face activity assumed the role of another peer. After some discussion, it was determined that the narrator’s presence was not essential to the performance in Second Life, and because of the text-based communication, would have been difficult to identify as such. The effects of the elimination of the narrator were discussed in details in the results section. Both activities were observed and evaluated by other class members to determine the type of motivational syndrome being portrayed by the group.
Data Collection
The researchers observed both activities, and took notes on the students' performances. When they finished both of the role-play activities, the four participants were interviewed as a focus group on their experiences of participating in the activities. Data including the participants’ personality types, researchers’ notes during the observation and the participants’ responses to interview questions were collected.
Results and Discussion
Data collected from both observation and focus group were analyzed. In this section, the findings from observations and surveys were first presented separately, and then were combined and triangulated to provide answers to the research questions.
Observations
When analyzing the observation data, we compared the following things in the two environments: the duration of the activities, the content of communication, the amount of verbal communication, the amount of non-verbal communication, the language style and the effect of personality type.
Duration. The face-to-face activity was completed in one minute, thirty-seven seconds. This time frame was consistent with the other face-to-face role plays being conducted by the other control groups. Talking and activity ceased abruptly after the participants announced that they had completed the role play. On the other hand, the Second Life role play had a duration of 15 minutes. Participants continued to converse and comment on their experience after the play had ceased.
Content. The face-to-face role play dialogue was notably faithful to the original material given the participants, while the Second Life role-play deviated significantly from the script. This adherence to the script was also observed in the other groups’ role-playing activities.
For instance, in both the provided script for the performance avoidance (face-to-face activity) and the personal interest value (Second Life activity) student, notes on behavior were included as suggestions for role-play performance. Below are some excerpts from the scripts and actual performance to illustrate this difference:
Face-to-Face Role-Play
Performance Avoidance script:
During a social studies test Dave sharpens his pencil twice, picks up an eraser that has fallen to the floor, and ties his shoelaces. He makes no attempt to conceal his lack of attention to the questions. To the contrary, he seems eager for everyone to notice that he is not trying. The teacher publicly reminds him several times to get to work, giving Dave and his classmates the message that if he tried, his performance, which will otherwise inevitably be poor, might be better. This of course, is exactly the interpretation Dave desires.
Dave's strategies serve their purpose, at least in the short term. He manages to complete some assignments with a respectable, if not an excellent, level of performance. By fooling around while he is supposed to be taking tests (when other strategies, such as cheating, are not available), he at least avoids appearing dumb, the logical conclusion associated with poor performance and high effort. By not trying, he creates an alternative explanation for failure, leaving open the question of whether he would have done well on the test if he had tried.
Performance Avoidance actual observation:
Student 3 stretched her neck and looked at student 4’s paper.
2. "Quit looking at my paper!” Student 4 shouted out.
3. The teacher came up to the two students, saying “Quiet down, you are taking a test!” And then she walked back toward the blackboard, starting to write on the blackboard – “March 29, 2007 Test #4”.
Student 3 peeked at student 4’s paper again.
4. “Stop!” Student 4 shouted in an even louder voice.
5. “Is there a problem?” The teacher turned back and asked.
6. “No, no.” Student 3 replied in a haste. She buried her head, writing something on the paper. But not very long, she started to sharp her pencil.
7. The teacher looked at her and frowned,” I asked before class if anyone needed their pencils sharpened.”
8. “I just thought I would sharpen it again.” Student 4 murmured.
9. The narrator started to read, “Dave’s strategies serve the purpose at least in a short term. He manages to complete some assignments with an acceptable amount of excellence and performance. By fooling around while he is supposed to be taking a test, other strategies such as cheating are not available, he at least avoids appearing dumb, the logical conclusion associated with poor performance and high effort. By not trying, he creates an alternative explanation for failure, leaving open the question whether he would have done well on the test if he had tried.”
Second Life Role-Play
Personal Interest Value script:
Typically, Santos shows little interest in schoolwork. Threats of bad grades have no effect because he is quite satisfied with a grade that he can achieve with little effort.He usually finishes his work, but he never does more than the minimum. He makes it a rule never to study for a test because he knows that he can pass most tests simply by paying marginal attention in class. Santos knows he is smart, but he is not inclined to show off. He is not interested in gaining his peers' respect by demonstrating academic excellence, and he is not interested in gaining his teachers' respect at all. He is motivated to stay out of trouble -- at least most of the time.Consequently, he does what is required to keep teachers "off his back."
Personal Interest Value actual observation:
49. (Teacher)You: OK you little rascals ..Did you study for today's test?
50. (Peer 1)Sadie McMillan: Of course I did!
51. (PIV Student) Kimberly Krasner: umm, not really.
52. (Peer 2) Jes Rossini: me either
53. (PIV Student) Kimberly Krasner: me and jes went to a baseball game last night
54. (PIV Student) Kimberly Krasner: it was sooooo much fun!
55. (Teacher)You: Good job Sadie, ok for the rest of you good luck
56. (Peer 1)Sadie McMillan: are you serious?
57. (Peer 2) Jes Rossini: yeah, it was so much fun!
58. (PIV Student) Kimberly Krasner: yeah! why didn't you come?
59. (Peer 1)Sadie McMillan: do you realize how important the test is?
60. (Peer 2) Jes Rossini: its only like 50% of the grade....
61. (Teacher)You: Yeah so take out a pen or pencil
62. (Peer 2) Jes Rossini: u still have the other half...
63. (Peer 1)Sadie McMillan: umm exactly
64. (PIV Student) Kimberly Krasner: yeah it doesn't matter
65. (PIV Student) Kimberly Krasner: it's only a quiz
Verbal Communication. Verbal communications were far more numerous in the Second Life role play than in the face-to-face. In Second Life, participants used 108 verbal communications ranging from one word sentences to multi-word sentences. Additionally, participants continued to communicate after they had decided they were finished, for another 13 lines of verbal communication. In the face-to-face role-play, only 9 lines of verbal dialogue were observed, with communication ceasing shortly after the conclusion of the performance (see appendix).
Non-verbal Communication. Communication in the face-to-face role play was voice based on physical cues and facial expressions. Communication in Second Life was mainly text and avatar-based, and students could choose certain gestures and expressions to make their avatar laugh, jump, and so on. There was more non-verbal communication in face-to-face environment as compared to second life.
Language Style. The Second Life role-play dialogue featured informal speech, name-calling, “yelling” (dialogue written in all caps) and cursing among the participants, where, in contrast, the face-to-face dialogue was more restrained, focused and formal. Once again, this behavior observed in the face-to-face role-play was consistent with that observed in other groups’ interactions with one another.
For example, dialogue from the Second Life observation included the following verbal outbursts:
3. (PIV student) Kimberly Krasner: Get lost!
13. (Teacher)You: YOUR GUYS ARE LOSERS AHAH
22. (Teacher) You shout: STOP PLAYING GAMES CLASS..SHUT THE HELL UP!
23. (Peer 1) Sadie McMillan: watch your language teacher!
24. (PIV student) Kimberly Krasner: ummm i don't think you can say that to us
25. (Peer 1) Sadie McMillan: thats upsetting
26. (Peer 2) Jes Rossini: your setting a bad example
27. (PIV student) Kimberly Krasner: KMB!
28. (Teacher) You shout: YOU GUYS ARE GETTING ON MY FUCKING NERVE..IM GOING TO START CALLING PARENTS IN A MINUTE
29. (Peer 2)Jes Rossini: whoa! watch it missy!
30. (Peer 1) Sadie McMillan: ohhhh bad word
31. (Teacher) You: YOU GUYS ARE SUCK FUCKING BABIES...ACTING LIKE YOU HAVENT HEARD A CURSE WORD BEFORE
36. (Teacher) You: WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING BOUT
39. (Teacher) You: Jes is a freak...how u get in the air..FREAK!
82. (PIV student) Kimberly Krasner: Get lost!
83. (Peer 1) Sadie McMillan: i am taking the test away from the weirdos there
84. (Teacher) You: do anyone else wants to leave ?
85. Jes Rossini: weirdos! what! please, we just like to have fun...
The Effect of Personality Type. The researchers suspected that data collected from the Myers-Briggs Typology assessment would have some relationship to the observation data. As stated earlier in this paper, two of the students were assessed as being extroverted and two of the students exhibited introverted tendencies. One of the Second Life lightly introverted-assessed students appeared to exhibit a high frequency of anti-social behavior (“yelling,” cursing, name-calling and informal speech). This participant also assumed the role of the “teacher” in both activities. Her behavior in the face-to-face activity was remarkably more restrained and professional, as would be expected of an actual “teacher” in a classroom.
On the other hand, one of the extroverted-assessed students chose the role of the “motivationally-challenged” student in both role-playing activities. Her verbal expressions were far more numerous and playful in the Second Life activity than in the face-to-face, but she was polite and friendly in both activities. All four participants, regardless of personality typology, were significantly more verbal in the Second Life activity than in the face-to-face.
Interview
We read through the student responses to interview questions several times, in order to identify the major themes emerged from their responses. Once a major theme was found, we looked for both confirming and disconfirming data. Altogether five major themes emerged from the analysis.
Less inhibitions in Second Life. Students felt that they were less constrained and more open in Second Life. As the students put it, “You’re more open online. Definitely. You let your personality kind of go … without overthinking.” “When you’re online it’s like you’re uninhibited.” (S1) It is not quite clear why they felt that way. One possible explanation is that Second Life is a new and novel environment for the students. Therefore, they found it was fun and exciting to explore and play around. Just as the students commented, “It was fun…Everyone was saying this is cool, go here, try and fight.” (S3). The students might regard the role play in Second Life as playing on something fun, instead of completing a classroom task. In this way, they were more likely to free themselves up and be less restricted by other things like classroom rules. Another possible explanation is when students performed role play with their avatars in Second Life, they had a less sense of anxiety, because “everyone’s not staring at you” (S4). Therefore, in Second Life, they “(do) not really care that it’s not really you.” (S1)
Less Control in Second Life. Right after the role play in the Second Life was over, one student continued to type in Second Life, “That totally did NOT go how we planned”, and another student responded “I don't know if it went along with what we were supposed to do.” Students found face to face role play was “more structured” (S1), and it was hard for them to have the same control over the direction of their conversation in Second Life -- “We just kept saying things and they kind of took off, went nowhere.” (S1) This could perhaps be explained by the first theme. As students became less constrained, they were more likely to say whatever they want instead of sticking to their original scripts. Another possible reason is that, in face to face environment, people always take turns to talk, so the listener is dealing with only one piece of information at one time. In Second Life, however, people could type simultaneously in Second Life, which produce a huge amount of information for them to read and respond. One student complained that it is hard to keep track of the conversation when everyone was typing like crazy, “In second life, each of us has a conversation on top of each other. Like I might respond to hers, but somebody else gets to it before me. And they change the conversation, so my response is like where did that come from … and then you gotta keep reading, instead of reading hers, versus talking, then everybody knows who you are right off the bat, it’s a little more slower.” (S2) In situation like this, it must be hard to carry out the original plan.
Harder to Use Non-verbal Cues in Second Life. “You can express emotions and stuff (in face-to-face environment), but while you are online you really can’t.” (S3) Though Second Life allows the players to choose their gestures and expressions, students still felt it hard to actually use them during the conversation. This is probably because the conversation went very fast, and the students found they did not have time to look for and add these non-verbal cues while kept the conversation going. As one student said, “…you’ve gotta hurry up and find the little gestures, when you’re in person this doesn’t happen.” (S4) It could also be true that students were so engaged in the conversation, that they found looking for those little cues was distracting. It was unknown if more time had been spent training the participants to produce gestures proficiently, whether the students would have done it differently or not.
More Ambiguity in Second Life. It seems students felt sometimes meanings were ambiguous in Second Life, with one student saying, “Things can be taken in so many different ways, like you could be joking about something to some people and somebody might think that you’re not.” (S3) This is probably related to the previous theme. As there were little non-verbal cues, it was hard to interpret what was said. One student said, “Online it’s hard to figure out what emotions are showing.” (S2)
The Effect of No Narrator in Second Life. The researchers intentionally asked students whether the elimination of narrator in Second Life had any consequence on their performance. Student 1 and 3 answered the question. Student 1 responded, “It didn’t set the stage so no one knew what was gong on.” This might be true. As the two researchers were observing the Second Life role play, they found it hard to figure out who was who and what was going on. Student 3 responded in a different way, “We were actually gonna do more role playing than someone else who is saying ‘Oh now this is gonna happen.’” It suggested the elimination of narrator may lead to a less structured and more spontaneous interaction among the four students.
Summary
Based on the above analysis, it was clear that student interactions in face-to-face environment and Second Life differ in three ways. First, there were more verbal interactions and less non-verbal interactions in Second Life. Second, in Second Life, the interactions were less focused in content. Third, in Second Life, the interactions were more informal.
In Second Life, the environment was novel and fun, which stimulated the students' interest to participate more actively or to intentionally play with it. Secondly, the students performed role play with avatars in Second Life, so they were less worried about being watched by someone else, and were more likely to say whatever they wanted to say. Therefore, they tended to have a greater amount of interactions and in a less formal way. In addition, as it was a little inconvenient to choose gestures and expressions in Second Life, verbal communication almost became the only way to interact. While several people were able to type simultaneously, a lot of information was produced at one time. When students started to respond to each other, more information was produced. It soon led to an explosion of verbal exchanges. This might blurred the direction the students wanted to go, so they had little choice but to be carried away by the flow of their conversation.
In addition, one of the introverted students interacted more with others in Second Life. According the observation data, this happened with the student who played the teacher roles in both F2F and SL activities. This could mean that personality type constraints normally present in face-to-face interactions have been disabled in Second Life.
Admittedly, the elimination of narrator may also have affected the nature of interactions in Second Life. However, we should take caution in reaching the conclusion that the elimination of narrator led to the less structured, more spontaneous conversation, and greater amount of interactions because of the following reasons. First, students were allowed to plan for their role plays in both environments. Therefore, before they started each role play, they should have known quite well how they were going to act this out. It is not completely as Student 1 described when she said “It didn’t set the stage so no one knew what was gong on.” Second, according to the interview data, there were factors other than the narrator that were influencing the interactions in the role play, such as increased ambiguity of meaning, fewer inhibitions, harder to see non-verbal cues and so on. Several factors coexisted to affect the nature of interactions, and lack of narrator control is just one of them. Third, even if there were a narrator in the Second Life role playing activity, it is doubtful whether the interactions would go more structured and more formal. Due to the spontaneous nature of the Second Life activity, and the lowered inhibition, it is doubtful whether the narrator's voice would still be heard, or whether the narrator would still be able to exert an influence over the other players as much as it did in the face-to-face environment.
Conclusion/Implications
For instructors or educators who are interested in including role-plays in online education, the findings from this study are encouraging. It seems that a 3D environment like Second Life holds great potential in enhancing the interactions between the role-players.
There are other features revealed by this study about the Second Life environment for role playing, e.g. less focus, lowered inhibitions, increased spontaneity and decreased control. It is difficult to judge and claim whether these features are desirable or not. The value judgment depends on the purpose of the activity designers. If the purpose is for the students to replay a literary work according to scripts, then less focus would not be desirable. However, the parallel spontaneity may become more desirable if the purpose is to observe the natural responses in certain situations. Further, we observed a considerable degree of informal language in the Second Life transcripts. The informality of language may be undesirable and counterproductive for some discussions and situations, but may be appropriate for others.
Considering two of the major concepts in the literature, anonymity and personality, we have come to new understanding. It seems that anonymity is not so much a concern for the Second Life players in this study, at least not as important as the literature suggests, because these players knew one another’s identities and yet interaction was not impeded.
As for student personality, it may be situational. The SL environment helped a few of the participants exhibit personality traits that are not usually demonstrated in daily life. Or, we may go one step further to suggest that the concept of personality we normally talk about is based on information collected from face-to-face life. A more accurate description or estimation of personality in modern life should consider including information collected from the second life, the virtual world.
While we are excited about the findings in our study, we also realize the limitations of the study. The most obvious one is related to the sample size and structure, only four, and all female students. This definitely raises concerns over generalization. Besides, post hoc speculation about the elimination of the narrator in Second Life has brought us to wonder what would happen if there were a narrator in the Second Life role play. A third confounding variable we are aware of is the excitement the participants may have experienced in a digital environment like SL. It may be argued that the participants' increased interactivity may be the result of the unfamiliarity and novelty of environment. Therefore, in future studies, it may be desirable to increase the sample size, to have a better control of the two conditions, and to explore what educational objectives and tasks can be better achieved in such 3D online environment as compared to face-to-face environment.
Despite of the limitations, this study has revealed interesting findings. Although we need more evidence, these initial findings definitely warrant further research. It is expected that further research will clarify some important issues, and will better inform the instructors and instructional designers of the educational implications of 3D online environments such as SL.
References
Bell, M. (2001a). A case study of an online role play for academic staff. Meeting at the crossroads: Proceedings of the annual conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, 63-72.
Bell, M. (2001b). Online role -play: Anonymity, engagement and risk. Education Media International, 38(4), 251-260.
Bullen, M. (1998). Participation and ciritical thinking in online university distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 13(2). Retrieved on March, 20, 2007 from http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol13.2/bullen.html.
Burns, A. C., & Gentry, J. W. (1998). Motivating students to engage in experiential learning: a tension-to-learn theory. Simulation and Gaming, 29, 133-151.
Dickey, M.D. (2005). Three-dimensional virtual worlds and distance learning: two case studies of Active Worlds as a medium for distance education, British Journal of Educational Technology 36(3): 439-451.
Dickey, M.D. (2003). Teaching in 3D: Pedagogical affordances and constraints of 3D virtual worlds for synchronous distance learning. Distance Education. 24(1), 105-122.
Freeman, M. & Bamford, A. (2004). Student choice of Anonymity for learner identity in online learning discussion forums. International Journal on E-learning. 3(3), 45-53.
Freeman, M. & Capper, J. (1999) Exploiting the web for education: An anonymous asynchronous role simulation. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 15 (1), 95–116.
Glaser, Barney G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs. forcing.
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago.: Aldine.
Harasim, L. (1989). Online education: An environment for collaboration and intellectual amplification. In R. Mason & A. Kaye (Eds.), Mindweave: Communication, computers, and distance education (pp. 50-62). New York: Pergamon Press.
Ladousse, G. (1987) Role Play. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ments, V. (1989).The Effective Use of Role Play: A Handbook for Teachers and Trainers. New York: Nichols Publishing.
Sullivan, P. (2002). “It’s easier to be yourself when you are invisible”: Female college students discuss their online classroom experience. Innovative Higher Education, 27(2), 129-144.
No comments:
Post a Comment