Virtual Learning Worlds for Programming Playground: Engaging Students in a Virtual Environment

1. The Programming PlaygroundMike Hobbs Marie Gordon, Elaine Brown Department of Computing Anglia Ruskin UniversityCambridge and Chelmsford UK

2. The Problem – Learning to Program • 'Good' computing Students • get into programming • try things out and experiment • complete and extend examples • can't be stopped • 'Poor' computing students • find programming hard and boring • use rote learning and/or cut and paste • do not engage with exercises • can't get started

3. Solution? – student learning focus • Don't 'teach' programming – encourage: • exploration and discovery • peer to peer learning • social constructivism • Other approaches • reusable learning objects • online tutorials • games • competitions

4. Why Use a Virtual World ? • Engagement • Increased feedback from environment • ‘Rich’ environment manipulated by user • More customisable = more ‘ownership’ = greater engagement • Constructive • egalitarian approach to learning • remove teacher learner barrier • student contribution equally valued

5. Features of Second Life • A kind of MMORPG? • Not a game but uses game technology • no theme • no levels , no goals, no challenges • no rewards, no penalties • no end point • Content provided by residents for residents • create themes, set goals, provide rewards • build communities • Strong SL – RL links • Music, art, movies, business, retail, news, educational resources, SL campus

6. The learning advantage • Use SL to facilitate • An open ended environment away from the classroom • More ‘realistic’ task based activity • Appeals to different learning styles • Support a student led exploratory approach to learning • Programming and design • can only be learned by doing • grammar + syntax ≠shakespear

7. Initial project idea • Create a 'playground' of artefacts for novice programmers e.g. • Swing – will swing ‘n’ times demonstrating a for loop • Round-a-bout – will rotate ‘while’ an avatar is sat on it. • Slide – one ladder gives access to a number of different slides – demonstrating choice • Objects to have both obvious and 'surprise' behaviours • Students input parameters to objects • Students 'discover' properties of objects

8. Developing learning outcomes • BUT • limited range of actions for objects • demonstrate rather than participate • need to teach concept of 'algorithm' • So, extend the learning • create building blocks for a task • clearly outline the requirements of a task • students assemble elements to achieve task • e.g. sorting different sized and coloured objects.

9. Realisation • Second level computing students • Already program (mostly) • need to link design and implementation • project re-cast to support program design • Get students to create playground objects • introduce lsl via tutorials and examples • 'jumping box' and 'rotating object' examples linked to UML design exercises

10. Linden Scripting Language • LSL is a 'C' like Language - Not Object Oriented • State based • Restrictions on data storage • limited IDE, quirky • Using non OO language for pure OO simulation • Avatars = Actors • Objects = Objects • Programming details 'hidden' • Interaction via message passing

11. Student activities • Registration and orientation in SL • Technical issues - firewall and port ids) • Orientation island - keeps changing) • Help island – has building and scripting demos • Getting started • Find the Anglia Ruskin Computing land, join group. • Further orientation tasks – treasure hunt • Set up reporting process (Moodle, snapzilla, photbucket, blogger, multiply)

12. Designing and using lsl • My first object • Introduction to lsl – jumping box. • Playground artefacts • each student has a go at building one playground object • Car park Scenario • groups pick an aspect to model and implement: • vehicle • ticket machine • barrier • parking space(s) • Different objects have to interact...

13. Initial results – user interaction types • Different types of interaction with SL • Superficial - user does not engage • Realistic – Behaves in SL as they would in RL • Empowered – Realistic but empowered to be more adventurous • Fantastic – SL regarded as a game, bold social behaviour. • Different types of learner – (Honey and Mumford) • Theorist – rational and structured learning • Reflector – learn by observation and review • Pragmatist – seek practical applications • Activist – learn by experiencing

14. Superficial Realistic Empowered Fantastic Theorist Pragmatist Reflector Activist Initial Results: Learning Styles

15. Initial results – learning behaviours • Learning from each other • Students can see the effect of their actions • Learning through student discovery • peer to peer • online / in-world tutorials • student decides what they need. • Highly personalised – each has own point of view • Classroom communication preferred to in-world instant messaging. • Blurring of SL / RL barrier.

17. Questions? ... Answers?