There are three predominent metaphors we use in computer mediated communication.
The desktop, the browser and increasingly virtual worlds. The desktop implies some workspace with writing tools, the browser is akin to looking in shop windows where you click to go inside.
The power of these two systems is that they have familarity with an older system. They are simpler to learn. Varients on these two pillars of computing promotes further child metaphors, which can readily adopt and use without learning a new vocabulary or command set. Blogs for example are all largely the same engineering, with common terms and proceedures such as upload.
Virtual worlds are a legacy of MUDs and VR. They imply a falseness or at least adjunct reality and are not real, nor are any of the objects or experiences contained in them.
Game developers have a better metaphor and don't focus on the aging mantra "an immersive 3d world where the residents ...", instead the simply indicate whether the game has stand alone, multiplayer or co- opt modes.
Play alone, play with others in physical proximity or play online with potentially millions of others.
The metaphor of the classroom is to me rather pointless in an online context. Nor is drawing distictions between 2d and 3d as one being better than the other. Better is entirely dependant on what is learned though the implicit act of being taught. A classroom has a well understood dynamic. It doesn't readily translate to online, yet teachers are looking constantly for familiar linguistic metaphors.
Learning online means enabling co-opt mode. It requires facilitation and the deliberate design of the environment. Play is widely accepted as being positive to learning, but we draw a distictions between a playroom and a classroom.
We are often unable to unhook ourselves from the virtual and the world. We need new metaphors if we are to explore new, unfamiliar ideas.
Enter the age of co-opt learning. Where we are working as a team, not a group. Where there is something worth winning.
Comments [0]