Second+Life+Instructor+Survey

= = Joosten, T. (2008). Second Life for Improving Teaching and Learning: Instructor Survey. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Learning Technology Center. Retrieved from http://mysurveys.wikispaces.com/Second+Life+Instructor+Survey. = = =__ Appendix A: Second Life Faculty Survey __=

General Information

1. I have received an explanation of this study and agree to participate. I understand that my participation in this study is strictly voluntary. •Yes •No

2. In which course did you use Second Life (be specific)?

3. At which university did you teach this course?

4. Would you be interested in a follow-up survey? •Yes •No

5. Would you be interested in a follow-up interview (over the phone or Internet)? •Yes •No

Social Interaction/Communication

SOCIAL INTERACTION

Media Richness


 * 1) What were the advantages, if any, of the using real-time (synchronous) interaction?


 * 1) What were the advantages, if any, of the participants’ ability to have more cues and communication channels (e.g., nonverbal and environmental cues) available to them in order to complete their activity?


 * 1) What were the advantages, if any, of the participants’ ability to receive immediate feedback from others in Second Life?


 * 1) Were there any disadvantages to students using real-time communication medium that allows for immediate feedback and multiple cues and channels in Second Life?

Social Presence


 * 1) Did you and your students feel as if they were connected, that they were communicating with another human being or real person in a mediated environment? Explain.

Engagement


 * 1) Was there opportunity in Second Life for higher order thinking or academically challenging activities? Explain.


 * 1) Was there opportunity in Second Life for active and collaborative learning? Explain.


 * 1) Was there opportunity for enriching educational experiences in Second Life? Explain.


 * 1) Were students attracted to their learning activities in Second Life? Explain.


 * 1) Were they willing to participate and exert effort in completing their learning activities? Explain.


 * 1) Were students curious and enthusiastic about the learning activities in Second Life? Explain.


 * 1) Were students more engaged in Second Life learning activities than other learning activities used in the course? Explain.

Online Learning Community


 * 1) Was their opportunity for students to form relationships with other students and yourself in their Second Life activities? If so, how did this impact their success in the course?

General


 * 1) What challenges did you and your students have in creating meaningful social interactions in Second Life?


 * 1) What previous technologies did you use as a medium to facilitate this learning activity (or activities)?


 * 1) How did the students’ communication and interactions differ in Second Life from the previous medium used?

Outcomes


 * 1) How did Second Life impact student communication behaviors online?


 * 1) How did Second Life impact student engagement?


 * 1) How did Second Life impact student learning?


 * 1) How did Second Life impact student performance?


 * 1) How did you measure the effectiveness of Second Life?

Pedagogy


 * 1) Why did you choose to integrate Second Life into your course design?


 * 1) What learning objectives and pedagogical goals were you able to meet using Second Life?


 * 1) Why or why not was Second Life a more effective platform to facilitate your learning objectives than other means (online asynchronous discussions, collaborative online groups using communication tools, etc.)?


 * 1) What type of learning activities did your students perform in Second Life? Please include any instructions, if available.


 * 1) Did Second Life increase the opportunity for active learning? Why or why not?


 * 1) Did Second Life help you better meet the learning objectives than another online medium (e.g., course management system)? Why or why not?


 * 1) How did you integrate their Second Life activities with other technologies [e.g., a course management system, blogging or wiki tool, social networking tool (facebook)]?


 * 1) How did you deliver content to your students needed to complete the activity(ies) in Second Life (text, video, documents; in Second Life or in CMS)?


 * 1) What challenges did you encounter in implementing Second Life into your course design? How did you overcome them?

Assessment


 * 1) How did you assess the activity (e.g., rubric)?


 * 1) What type of feedback did students receive regarding their Second Life activities?

Satisfaction


 * 1) Would you recommend Second Life to a fellow instructor? Why or why not?


 * 1) Will you continue to use Second Life in the future? Why or why not?


 * 1) Did you students like using Second Life? Explain. Please include any evidence (anecdotes or surveys), if available.

Technical Considerations


 * 1) What technical considerations did you make when integrating Second Life into your course design?


 * 1) What student support issues did you anticipate?


 * 1) What steps did you take to help support students in using Second Life? Explain.


 * 1) What student support issues did you encounter that were not anticipated?


 * 1) Would you be interested in a follow-up survey?
 * 2) Would you be interested in a follow-up interview (over the phone or Internet)?

Second Life Survey for Instructors

Instructions

Informed Consent Information

I am Tanya Joosten at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. I am conducting a study of how Second Life impacts social interaction, teaching, and student learning. I would appreciate your participation in this study, as it will assist us in making recommendations for implementing Second Life on campuses and in developing a better understanding of communication processes in virtual worlds.

If you agree to be in this study, you will be asked to fill out an online survey about your experience using Second Life for your course(s) that will take 15-20 minutes to complete. There are no known risks associated with your being in the study. Possible benefits are that you will have a voice in helping shape the instruction that students receive and will contribute to the literature on Second Life.

The survey you fill out will be treated confidentially. Your email will not be linked to your survey answers after it is retrieved from the website. The emails will be used to contact you again in the future for follow up studies anticipated in the spring. Data from this study may be published in professional journals. Only grouped data will be presented or published. As an online participant in this research, there is always the risk of intrusion by outside agents, i.e., hacking, and therefore the possibility of being identified.

By checking the box below, you are stating that you are at least of 18 years of age and understand that any information about you will be treated in a confidential manner and that the data collected and the results obtained will be used for research purposes only. Your personal information will never be used to report any results of the projects. You understand that the records and data files related to this research project will be maintained in the UWM Learning Technology Center for a period no longer than ten years and that only personnel directly associated with this project will have access to them.

You understand that you may refuse to participate in this study or withdraw at any time without penalty. You understand that you may be withdrawn from this study by the investigators if you do not meet the screening criteria. You understand that, should you withdraw or be withdrawn from the study, any information that you have provided will be destroyed.

This study has been explained to you and your questions have been answered. If you have additional questions, you may contact the principal investigator:

Once the study is completed, we would be glad to give the results to you. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please contact me:

Tanya Joosten Learning Technology Center Department of Communication University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee PO Box 604 Milwaukee, WI 53201 tjoosten@uwm.edu 414.229.4319

I understand that if I have any complaints about my treatment in this study I may call or write:

Institutional Review Board Human Research Protection Program Department of University Safety and Assurances University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee P.O. Box 413 Milwaukee, WI 53201 (414) 229-3173

Please provide the following (*required)

Email*

General Information

1.

I have received an explanation of this study and agree to participate. I understand that my participation in this study is strictly voluntary.

Yes

No

2.

In which course did you use Second Life (be specific)?

3.

At which university did you teach this course?

4.

Would you be interested in participating in a follow-up survey?

Yes

No

5.

Would you be interested in participating in a follow-up interview (over the phone or Internet)?

Yes

No

Social Interaction

6.

What were the advantages, if any, of the real-time (synchronous) interaction in Second Life?

7.

What were the advantages, if any, of the participants’ ability to have more cues and communication channels (e.g., nonverbal and environmental cues) available to them as they completed their activity in Second Life?

8.

What were the advantages, if any, of the participants’ ability to receive immediate feedback from others in Second Life?

9.

Were there any disadvantages to students a using real-time communication medium that allows for immediate feedback and multiple cues and channels in Second Life?

10.

Did you and your students feel as if they were connected, that they were communicating with another human being or real person in a mediated environment? Explain.

11.

Was there opportunity in Second Life for higher order thinking or academically challenging activities? Explain.

12.

Was there opportunity in Second Life for active and collaborative learning? Explain..

13.

Were students attracted to their learning activities in Second Life? Explain.

14.

Were they willing to participate and exert effort in completing their learning activities? Explain.

15.

Were students curious and enthusiastic about the learning activities in Second Life? Explain.

16.

Were students more engaged in Second Life learning activities than other learning activities used in the course? Explain

17.

Was there opportunity for students to form relationships with other students and yourself in their Second Life activities? If so, how did this impact their success in the course?

18.

What challenges did you and your students have in creating meaningful social interactions in Second Life?

19.

What previous technologies did you use as a medium to facilitate this learning activity (or activities)? How did the students’ communication differ in Second Life from the previous medium used?

20.

How did the students’ communication and interactions differ in Second Life from the previous medium used?

Outcomes

21.

How did using Second Life impact student communication behaviors online?

22.

How did Second Life impact student engagement?

23.

How did Second Life impact student learning?

24.

How did Second Life impact student performance (e.g., exam scores, overall grade, etc.)?

25.

How did you measure the effectiveness of Second Life?

Pedagogy

26.

Why did you choose to integrate Second Life into your course design?

27.

What learning objectives and pedagogical goals were you able to meet using Second Life?

28.

Was Second Life a more effective platform to facilitate your learning objectives than other means (online asynchronous discussions, collaborative online groups using communication tools, etc.)? Explain.

29.

What type of learning activities did your students perform in Second Life? Please include any instructions student were given, if available.

30.

Did Second Life increase the opportunity for active learning? Why or why not?

31.

Did Second Life help you better meet the learning objectives than another online medium (e.g., course management system)? Why or why not?

32.

How did you integrate their Second Life activities with other technologies [e.g., a course management system, blogging or wiki tool, social networking tool (facebook)]?

33.

What challenges did you encounter in implementing Second Life into your course design? How did you overcome them?

34.

How did you deliver the content your students needed to complete the activity(ies) in Second Life (text, video, documents; in Second Life or in CMS)?

Assessment

35.

How did you assess the activity (e.g., rubric)?

36.

What type of feedback did students receive regarding their Second Life activities?

Satisfaction

37.

Would you recommend Second Life to a fellow instructor? Why or why not?

38.

Will you continue to use Second Life in the future? Why or why not?

39.

Did you students like using Second Life? Explain. Please include any evidence (anecdotes or surveys), if available.

Student Support

40.

What technical considerations did you make when integrating Second Life into your course design?

41.

What student support issues did you anticipate?

42.

What steps did you take to help support students in using Second Life? Explain.

43.

What student support issues did you encounter that were not anticipated?

Created with SurveyGold survey software - www.surveygold.com

References:

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.

Astin, A. W. (1991). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education. American Council on Education Series on Higher Education.Washington/New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduateeducation. AAHE Bulletin, 39(1), 3-7.

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R.H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness, and structural determinants. //Management Science//, 32 (5), 554-571.

Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups. //Human Computer Interaction//, 6, 199-146.

Kuh, G.D., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E.J., and Associates. (1991). Involving Colleges: Successful Approaches to Fostering Student Learning and Personal Development Outside the Classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we're learning about student engagement from NSSE. Change, 35(2), 24-32

Kuh, G. D., and Hall, J. (1993) "Cultural Perspectives I Student Affairs." In G.D. Kuh (ed.), Cultural Perspectives in Student Affairs Work. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America & American College Personnel Association, 1993.

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J. I., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J. & Associates. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Ice, P. (November 8th, 2007). Community of inquiry framework: Validation and instrument development. Presented at the Sloan-C Annual Conference in Orlando, FL.

Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer mediated communication. //American Psychologist//, 39, 330-347.

Pace, C. R. (1979). Measuring outcomes of college: Fifty years of findings and recommendations for the future. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Pace, C. R. (1980). Measuring the quality of student effort. Current Issues in Higher Education, 2, 10-16.

Pace, C. R. (1984). Measuring the Quality of College Student Experiences. An Account of the Development and Use of the College Student Experiences Questionnaire .Higher Education Research Institute, Graduate School of Education, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Rice, R. E. (1993). Media appropriateness: Using social presence theory to compare traditional and new organization media. //Human CommunicationResearch//, 9, 451-484

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: John Wiley & Sons.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyper-personal interaction. //Communication Research, 23//, 3-43. = =