Second Life: An Engaging Learning Platform

Really Engaging Accounting: Second Life ™ as a Learning Platform Dr. Steven Hornik / Robins Hermano Kenneth Dixon School of Accounting University of Central Florida

Accounting and Second Life? ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

The Problem ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

A Solution ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

But What is Engagement ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Some definitions ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Antecedents to Flow (Csikszentmihalyi , 1990)

Social Presence ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

A Model Environmental Believability Sense of Being There Connections with Students and Content Social Presence Student Engagement

One More Factor ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Prior Accounting Studies ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Encouraging Engagement Changing Course Environment ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Engagement ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Hypotheses ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Research Setting ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Research Treatment ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

3-D Accounting Equation ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Interactive T-Account ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Participants ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

ITC-Sense of Presence ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

ITC-SOPI Factors ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Hypothesis 1 – Partially Supported t df Sig. (1 tailed) Mean Difference Exam 1 1.35 108 .09* 3.160 Exam 2 .394 103 .347 1.179 Exam 3 1.608 103 .055** 5.018 Exam 4 1.403 98 .082* 3.040 Final Exam .525 96 .215 3.138

Hypothesis 2 ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Second Life ™ Tools can enable Student Engagement ,[object Object],[object Object]

Regression Model H3 Partially Supported Source Type III df Mean Square F Sig. Corrected Model 73.185* 96 .762 4.239 .003 Intercept 70.821 1 70.821 393.797 .000 Spatial Presence 10.711 28 .383 2.127 .076 Ecological Validity 3.501 15 .233 1.298 .322 Adverse Effects 3.141 16 .196 1.091 .443 Gender .190 1 .190 1.058 .322 Spatial x Gender 3.470 18 .193 1.072 .458 Error 2.338 13 .180 Total 931.473 110 Corrected Total 75.523 109 * R squared = .969, (Adjusted R squared = .740)

Hypothesis 4 ,[object Object],Adverse Effect N Mean Std. Deviation Exam 1: Adverse Reaction 18 72.2 3.04 Exam 1: Favorable Reaction 92 79.2 1.24 Exam 2: Adverse Reaction 16 60.8 3.46 Exam 2: Favorable Reaction 89 73.3 1.56 Exam 3: Adverse Reaction 15 64.8 3.61 Exam 3: Favorable Reaction 90 73.7 1.70 Exam 4: Adverse Reaction 15 63.3 3.41 Exam 4: Favorable Reaction 85 72.7 1.65 Final: Adverse Reaction 15 90.8 4.27 Final: Favorable Reaction 83 105.0 2.13

Hypothesis 4 - Supported t df Sig. (1 tailed) Mean Difference Exam 1 -2.286 108 .012*** -7.11 Exam 2 -3.159 103 .001*** -12.53 Exam 3 -2.029 103 .023*** -8.96 Exam 4 -2.219 98 .015*** -9.30 Final Exam -2.666 96 .005*** -14.20

Summary ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Conclusion ,[object Object],[object Object]

Follow my Journey ,[object Object],06/04/09 CTLA Anaheim August 2008

Questions? http://www.slideshare.net/shornik/second-life-a-learning-platform

Second Life: An Engaging Learning Platform

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (17)

Similar to Second Life: An Engaging Learning Platform

Similar to Second Life: An Engaging Learning Platform (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Second Life: An Engaging Learning Platform