evpoole

Fui a trabajar hoy.  Estudie esta noche para la clase.

Fui a trabajar hoy.  Estudie esta noche para la clase.

I’m a Lost freak.  It’s my favorite show and, sometimes, an obsession.  Recently ABC released this site:

http://www.find815.com/site/index.php

This site is a game related to the TV show.  There are three parts that stand out (besides its affiliation with Lost):

1.  The time put into the site.  The video could be placed on the television show and fit right in.  The Flash interactions are well played out and the story line is quite good.

2.  How fun it is.

3.  Some of the new technologies I’ve seen.  They’re able to transition between video and flash animations better than I’ve ever seen.  They also have found a way to make Flash video clickable.  Meaning, the video is an active part of the screen and can be clicked on by the user.  Is this new?

The point?  I wish we could develop e-learning in this manner.

Our term begins on Monday.  Each week leading up to the start of the term is, by far, the most hectic.  Although, it wasn’t as bad as previous terms (no working until 3 a.m.), it is still very stressful.  The majority of the work comes from faculty who are either 1.  finishing up their course 2. just starting their course or 3.  a nervous wreck and just trying to get something done.

I don’t mind the 1 and 3, but the faculty who start their course the week (or, in some cases, day!) before a term begins cause me major frustration.  Despite being told how much more work it is to teach online, it doesn’t seem to make a difference.  I just hope they’re able to make it up as they go along in the term.

The other “problem” is, perhaps, a good thing.  We seem to have done a good job of introducing faculty to new technologies aimed at improving their courses.  The benefit is these technologies should help students (and faculty) and produce better courses. The drawback, of course, is the increased workload required to sustain these new technologies.

All this being said, I think one thing I will focus on in the future is a way to improve and speed up the development process.  I’m not sure how just yet - inform faculty we are already busy in the days leading up to the term? - but, it’s something that is a must.

I received my grade for Info 863…….A-.  Wonderful. Thank you.  Good Night

Why are there no “silver bullets” in Information Systems? For what domains are there “silver bullets”? What is common and what is different between these domains?

Information Systems, on the surface, seem to have straightforward uses. For example, it isn’t hard to imagine a search engine that retrieves desired information when needed. Unfortunately, anyone who has ever tried to develop (or even use) such a system knows there is nothing easy about it. A silver bullet would allow information system practitioners to develop better, more effective systems. Time typically spent creating, developing, testing and implementing systems could be spent by users on actually using the systems to do the intended work. As wonderful as it would be, however, there are no silver bullets in the Information Systems field. There are just too many factors a designer needs to consider when working on a system.

Frank Brooks outlined four inherent properties of software systems: complexity, conformity, changeability and invisibility. These properties dictated the reasons behind the original No Silver Bullet theory. It would be safe to say any domain made up of these properties would suffer the same fate as software engineering. As it is, these properties are alive and well within the information systems field. Just as they restricted software development, lets consider how these properties hurt the information systems field.

Complexity: Brooks argues software is complex because of their size and the fact computers themselves are complex. Considering these two issues, it is no wonder information systems are complex also. First, the mass amount of information available makes it difficult to work with. Benkler outlined how the information economy provides ways to share knowledge and build upon existing knowledge. One drawback to this is how much new information is created and how easy we’ve made it to create and share “new” information. Taken as a single entity, it is hard to consider anything larger than information (change). Developing a system that can properly manage the vast amount of information available is the start of the problem.

Secondly, since computers and technology are so intertwined with information, this creates a double layer of complexity. Whether it is access to the internet or a company’s knowledge based database, computers act as the primary entry point to information. Besides the characteristics Brooks mentions (differing computer states, non hierarchical structure, etc.) computers often impede access to information because of their difficulty to use. Unless humans and computers are all accounted for in the design, access to the proper information just won’t happen.

Conformity: Let’s assume we actually develop a system that all people can use sufficiently. It allows for users to search for specific bits of information and retrieves them with great results. We’re still hampered by the varying contexts in which the system will be utilized. Even the best designed system must work with an organization’s existing systems. Since these vary so much, it is unlikely we’ll be able to use our newly developed system without making some adjustments to fit organization.

Changeability: As stated, Benkler described how the information economy provides the opportunity to create and cultivate information by involving people from all over the world. While the benefits of this were covered in great extent, it does have drawbacks – something Tenner would be very concerned with. Namely, the state of information is constantly changing. Users are finding new ways to using old information, which leads to the creation of more information and so on. As more information is developed, systems must continually be advanced to keep up with demands. Again, using the search engine as an example, we now need ways to keep up with the changing content. In addition, the development of new file formats or media types may cause us to have to rethink how we structure our searches.

Invisibility: While not necessarily invisible because information can be represented through text, video, etc., information can be very ambiguous. While one piece of content may be extremely valuable to one organization, it may be completely worthless to another. This can result in inaccuracies in the way information is tagged or even accessed. On top of everything else, our search engine must now cater to the specifics of each organization it is deployed within. While some companies may be interested in retrieving customer related content through our search engine, another may want to store financial data. Since these differ so much, it is unlikely the same system would be able to be deployed without some (at least minor) altercations.

These characteristics are not specific to IS or software. In fact, any field that has similar traits will most likely tend to have the same problem finding a Silver Bullet. Fortunately, there are some domains that seemingly avoid these characteristics (at least on the surface). These fields tend to rely on fixed, consistent or hierarchical components and approaches in determining the relevant knowledge base. The domains that rely on this type of approach tend to fall within the physical or natural sciences category.
Two branches of natural sciences, mathematics and physics, are domains in which a silver bullet may apply. These fields are based on knowledge sources that remain fixed over time. The information that has been proven in these fields 100 years ago still applies today. The existing knowledge acts as a base in which new knowledge can be built upon. This is similar to the IS field, except the knowledge in physics and mathematics remains known and constant in every setting (e.g., gravity doesn’t work differently at IBM than it does at Drexel).

The key concepts in these fields all have been discovered using the scientific method. This relies on scientists observing, measuring and experimenting upon existing knowledge. The results can either be refuted or accepted based on the findings that are produced by the scientific method. IS, on the other hand, relies a great deal on humans to be successful. It is very difficult to apply a blanketed approach to determining results from humans.
This must have been something Simon struggled with as he progressed through his career. While economics doesn’t fall within the natural sciences domain since it incorporates humans to an extent, a great deal of it is based off of proven mathematical formulas found through the scientific method. The fact Simon attempted (and succeeded) in the fields of psychology and artificial intelligence, neither of which use the scientific method to the same extent, is astounding.
Perhaps as IS becomes a more established field, we will have more success in applying structured methods in determining and predicting results. This may lead to a version of the scientific method that applies to IS.

Does virtual reality  or virtual worlds represent a realistic tool for collaborative communication?

In his book, Snow Crash, Stephenson portrays a highly  developed virtual world known as the Metaverse.   The Metaverse allows users to interact with one another via avatars and  are connected via networks similar to the modern day internet.  The avatars can interact with one another and  form complex relationships usually reserved for the real world.  Stephenson isn’t the only person to speak of  the power of virtual worlds.  For years  we’ve been hearing about the potential benefits of virtual reality worlds, but  except for a few industries we’ve really yet to realize any of these.
That’s not to say we haven’t tried or aren’t working towards  these potential benefits.  Some of the  earliest virtual reality systems had users strap on goggles, headphones and  other clothing while placing their users in a 3D world.  These systems eventually lead to training  tools such as flight simulators and other military based systems.  However, these systems were expensive, hard to  use and only ended up in highly specialized organizations such as the military  or the airline industry.
Today’s version of virtual reality is much closer to what  Stephenson described.  Secondlife is  probably the most famous example of all the 3D systems on the market  today.  Similar to the fictional  Metaverse it consists of 3D avatars living in a virtual world, which can be  connected to via a network like the internet.   SecondLife has come closer to matching earlier expectations of what a  virtual reality world can and should be.   In addition to building virtual land and buildings, users of SecondLife  have formed social groups and other relationships.  Some users have even found ways of making  money by selling virtual products and services using SecondLifes own currency,  Lindens.  One user has even claimed to  make the equivalent of $1 million U.S. dollars selling products.
There have been substantial uses of SecondLife in other ways  as well.  Similar to the success flight  simulators found in providing training early on, SecondLife’s biggest  proponents have been in training and education.   Institutions of Higher Education have built virtual campuses and  developed numerous educational exercises.   Harvard Law School,  for example, has utilized SecondLife as a way to simulate court room sessions  with their students.  The University of Maryland uses SecondLife to train their  Executive MBA students in boardroom settings.  Even Drexel University  has purchased two islands in hopes of spurring come creativity in learning.
These are just a few of the examples that are currently  being used, but they aren’t the most compelling.  Reuters has reported IBM having earmarked $10  million to develop their own 3D intranet in addition to expanding their  SecondLife presence.  The current  technology king, Google, has recently reported to have formed a relationship  with Arizona State University  to develop a competing 3D world.  Not to  mention Google’s recently formed relationship with the company aptly named  Metaverse to help expand their Google Earth into a 3D environment.
Despite all this potential, we may not be as close as we  think to fully realizing the potential.   Even though people have taken up SecondLife, it still has critics.  The system is very hard to use and has a  steep learning curve.  Others have  mislabled it as a game, which it is definitely not.  There are no inherent objectives, goals or  strategies like you would find in the typical video game.  This has caused frustration for many users as  they aren’t sure what they should be doing.   Basically, the virtual world as in the real world is of what you make of  it.
Those who have been successful in using 3D virtual worlds  seem to realize the benefits of providing collaboration opportunities along  with a structured environment.  Just as  these components seem to be a part of a lot of good systems, perhaps, it’s the  blueprint for 3D virtual worlds as well.   It would be interesting to see what many of the authors think of the  potential of 3D virtual worlds in the various facets of society.  Brown, for example, would immediately be  drawn to the collaborative capabilities.   The ability to connect with users all over the world in a life like  environment has huge potential.  Just as  Stephenson’s Metaverse allowed users to build relationships, Brown would  explore the chance for organizations to connect virtually giving more users  access to valuable information.  This is  probably the same stance Alexander would take as well.  Anything that makes it easier to transmit and  spread information would be considered a positive.
Of course, this above points are based on the assumption people  find it easy to use SecondLife.  Being a  software engineer, Brooks may have a unique advantage when it comes to the  development of an application like SecondLife.   Brooks believes the second design of an application is usually worse  than the first.  However, I’m not so  convinced in this case.  Some of the  problems with SecondLife are due to its complexity (cumbersome controls, hard  to use tools, etc.).  I always believed  this was because SecondLife was on the cutting edge and wasn’t yet refined as a  tool.  I tend to believe that as other  companies (e.g. Google) begin developing their own alternative software, the  tools will become easier to use and more people will jump on board.  I think Brooks would be interested to see  what these next versions hold in store.
One particular area of interest is the ability to provide a  simulation type environment.  Schön talked in depth about  placing learners in realistic learning environments, but for some situations  this just isn’t feasible.  It’s  difficult, for example, to imagine pilots learning to fly real planes.  The flight simulator provides an excellent  learning environment.  In addition, many institutions  simply cannot afford the cost of providing a realistic simulation.  The simulations used at Harvard and the  University of Maryland illustrate how typical organizations can save money and begin  utilizing this type of environment to create detailed learning environments.
While the sophistication may not be quite there yet, it is  important to note that if used properly the potential is there for a very  productive tool.   Those who have criticized SecondLife (e.g.  Wired Magazine) seem to be oblivious to the necessity of synchronous communications  for these environments.  Again, since  thee are no stated goals or objectives and users must create their own  environment.  Without the structure of a  simulation and others to collaborate with, these tools aren’t going to be that  successful.

This week’s reading was Snow Crash.  This was the least ‘academic’ of all the books, and we were to focus on the future of technology.  Again, comparing the author’s writings with the previous readings in the class:

Will future technologies make it easier to gain access to information for all and provide more equality or will there continue to be a segment of the population that lacks information access?

Neal Stephenson did a great job of foreshadowing future inventions and the role they play in society in his book, Snow Crash. Many of the tools he describes allow users access to information just like many modern day applications. On some level, Stephenson’s Metaverse depicts the modern day internet. Users have the ability to navigate freely, accessing information and networking with other individuals, who are also logged in. In terms of function and usability, it closely resembles many 3D virtual applications such as Second Life, There or The Sims video game. Stephenson also writes about a Library, which gives the user access to huge quantities of information.

Most interesting is the way he was able to predict the role information will have in the future. Not unlike today, Stephenson depicts a time when having access to the most information possible gives you considerable power and creates a structure of inequality among the citizens. As a result, those who don’t have information access are left at a disadvantage or looked down upon in society. This view was so strong, people even developed careers as information gatherers, hoping to sell what they obtain to someone interested in purchasing a specific bit of content.

Stephenson’s use of the Library illustrates the disadvantages caused by a lack of information. Only a select group of people would have access to the library. The lead character, Hiro, mentions he wouldn’t own a library if it wasn’t purchased for him. He is also a skilled hacker, giving him further access to information. Towards the end of the book, we learn hackers or those exposed to more information had the ability to fend off viruses. Unfortunately hackers made up a small percentage of the population and were typically those individuals with the most technical skills.

Another disadvantage is exemplified when he notes how users using slow connections are viewed differently as avatars while in the Metaverse. He goes on to describe how these avatars are portrayed in black and white while those dialed in on a high speed connection have colorful avatars capable of making detailed facial expressions. Once in the Metaverse, users were segmented even further. Some were allowed in certain areas, while others were had access restricted. The idea of segmentation wasn’t restricted to the Metaverse as Stephenson’s world consists of many fragments made up of corporations, groups (e.g. the Mafia) and other individuals. Each of these segments is differentiated, in part, by the information they contain. In fact, the United States government is so focused on information intelligence it has standardized the time it takes to read a memo.

Fortunately for us only some of what Stephenson has predicated has come true. There is certainly still a digital divide, in which people with effective access to information have an advantage to those who don’t have access. Currently, people in developed countries have better access to the tools needed to gather information, thus their ability to use the information is greater. Even within countries, the more wealthy areas or groups (e.g. school districts) tend to have better resources. Despite these examples, overall it seems technology such as the internet (or Metaverse) is providing more access to information for more people and laying a more equal playing field.

Benkler paraphrased the combination of networking technologies and the reduced price in which these technologies can be produced is helping to free information for more people. Compare Wikipedia, one of Benkler’s favorite networked technologies, to Stephenson’s Library. Wikepedia is free (if we don’t consider the hardware costs) to access and anyone can contribute to the site. The Library was similar in that anyone could contribute and the end user is the one who decides what information is accessed. One difference was that the Library needed to be purchased. This, obviously, wouldn’t be something Benkler would agree with. Today’s internet started out with many people restricting access to content (in terms of pay sites), but in recent years this trend has changed. Hopefully we continue to move towards a more open society where knowledge is free and shared among participants. It is, after all, how we build knowledge.
The question of equality was also touched upon by Brown, in sorts, when we talked about communities of practice. Essentially, these are communities where users share learned content, allowing others the chance to use, manipulate and build upon the information. As long as the communities remain open and people readily contribute this structure would provide a good way of providing equality within in a group. The benefit is obvious – users can now rely on others and not just their experience to get a task done, recollect information, etc. Ideally, this makes each of the group members equal. The most experienced doesn’t have to be the most relied upon to do a task.

One potential area where Benkler and Brown may disagree on is membership to the group which contains the information. Benkler would argue anyone should have access to the group’s information bank. Brown may suggest only members of a pre qualified individuals make up the group. This way information can be controlled and everyone is sure what is added is beneficial to the group as a whole. Even taking this potential argument by Brown into consideration, there are certainly some advantages to making some of the group’s knowledge public (e.g. marketing purposes or further knowledge building).

Benklar and Brown wouldn’t be alone in their vision of open and s hared technologies. Alexander, too, would think some sort of equality could be obtained by sharing knowledge and information. As modern day society advances, it seems skillsets become more specialized. Our society views those holding specific “knowledge” and labels as being the only ones able to complete certain tasks. This contrasts greatly to past societies where people were expected to have many differing skills (e.g. building, hunting, etc). Since everyone practiced similar things, the knowledge about these skills was passed from one generation to another. Sharing knowledge like these “primitive” societies would create less reliance on one individual or group, thus creating a bit of equality.

A contrary view to this school of thought would be undertaken by Brooks (and to a lesser extent Schon). Brooks focused on hierarchies as a way of getting work done. These hierarchies were often needed to complete large complex tasks. In fact, Brooks description of the ideal programming team matched Stephenson’s autocratic view of the United States Government. Workers focused on small bits of code and had no idea what they were working on in the larger sense. If knowledge about the program could be spread out, while we still maintain the work structure, the hierarchical approach may not be so bad. This view usually makes for a sound program, but it also lacks any creativity and creates a very uneven structure among the workers. Those with knowledge about the goal of the application would obviously have some advantages over those at the bottom of the hierarchy.

In a sense, some of Schon’s ideas would also be less effective if everyone was expected to be equal. A big notion of Schon was to have a coach or mentor help drive the student and reach new educational heights. If the student and coach were thought of as equal, these heights probably wouldn’t occur. The relationship must be that one person was considered an expert while the other was considered a typical student.

This week is National Distance Learning Week.  Yesterday, Drexel hosted an awards ceremony for various faculty within the University.  A member from each college received an award for their ‘excellence’ in DL.  Although, sometimes we are a marketing machine maybe these things are what’s needed to help improve online teaching.  When I informed our recipient, Dr. Fariborz Partovi, he was generally excited to have received the award.  Another faculty member claimed it was her highest honer. 

Michael Nutter made an appearance at the awards ceremony as well.  Fresh off his victory in the election, he was often referred to as simply Mayor Elect, which sounds to me like a name given to a Transformer.  Optimus Prime, Galvatron, Mayor Elect, Starscreamer, Jazz…the list goes on. 

Post 2:

Given the context of a traditional higher education setting, how can the networked information economy be better utilized to improve the learning environment?

The traditional approach to learning/teaching in higher education consists of a lecturer and a group of students, who receive the lecture.  In terms of communication, if the course is designed well, there is some interaction among the participants (both lecturer and students).  This may include in-class discussions or even discussions in an online format (utilizing a course management system).  Looking deeper at the traditional class reveals some serious limitations including:

Class size.  Even the best designed classes traditional only focus on building interactions among those in the class.  While some classes have reached into the triple digits in terms of size, the majority have far less.  Even the large classes are at a disadvantage because they usually only contain one or two experts (usually in terms of the professor or a teaching assistant).  As Yochai Benkler indicates in his book, The Wealth of Networks, the advantage of large networks and groups is enormous.  Networks allow individuals the opportunity to obtain information from a larger group of people by increasing the range and diversity of information available.

Time.  Most classes meet three hours per week and last ten to fifteen weeks.  This gives the students very little time to interact among one another and the instructor.  Even if we take into account office hours and impromptu meetings among participants, the level of interaction is minimal.  Compare this to a social software setting where participants can meet synchronously through a network connection at their convenience.   Users from all over the world can (and do) interact whenever they can.

Technology.  Walk into most higher education classrooms and you’ll notice not much has changed in terms of technology in quite a while.  Some schools tout their use of “smart classrooms,” but this mostly means they have invested in passive presentation technology.  Now faculty can lecture to their students and avoid interaction by relying on PowerPoint presentations, DVD’s and the internet as learning devices.  Once again, as Benkler notes, the power of today’s information economy is the ability to interact with many people, quickly utilizing current technologies.

Simon

Because Simon had so many views on just about everything, it’s difficult to pin down exactly what he would think about the information economy.  On one hand, it can be argued the information economy, while providing individual freedom and the ability to interact with large groups of people, can be daunting with all the content that is available.  Simon spoke about decomposing large, complex information systems into smaller, more manageable tools.  However, attempting to decompose information today can be daunting due to the vast amount of information available to today’s learners.

One area Simon would be interested in is a single user’s ability to change an existing situation into a preferred situation.  This has never been more doable than it is now due to the accessibility and amount of information available to today’s average learner.  Taking into account the use of large networks, aided by technology, and assuming the user is able to self-decompose the amount of information available, today’s learner now has more tools to solve problems than ever before.

Simon would most likely want to implement more of a social setting in today’s higher education environment.  At the very least, he would be interested in utilizing technology to improve the learning environment.

Brown

Although Brown sometimes seemed to think technology got in the way of productivity, he would very much agree with Benkler in terms of increasing access to other individuals.  At the time Brown wrote his book, the internet and social technology was rather young.  Brown spoke of the problems of installing basic software and how telecommuters and other “virtual” individuals often felt isolated and lacked normal productivity.  However, he did note the advantages of forming social communities and how they can be used to disseminate knowledge.

If Brown were to rewrite or add to his book, he would certainly focus on a lot of the same material as Benkler did.  Brown would encourage the use of online social communities as information resources and be fascinated with how productive large virtual projects such as open source software has become.  Brown would support this same type of behavior in today’s classrooms by arguing for more access to outside groups for the students.  Most likely, he would see the use of social technology as a way of supporting these groups.

Alexander

Alexander would be most concerned with how the information economy provides learners a sense of individual autonomy.  The social aspect of today’s information provides people the chance to share experiences and connect with others who may have experienced something similar.  Whereas the traditional classroom focuses on information being passed from one person (i.e., the instructor) to a large group of people, the information society allows users to participate more actively.  This type of atmosphere provides the chance for information to be shared among participants.

Schön

The information economy may benefit Schön’s ideas the most.  One of his biggest ideas was to provide a coach for each of the students.  This is extremely hard due to the time restrictions.  It is unlikely an instructor would have the time to “coach” each student to the best of their ability.  The large networked capabilities of today’s technology help with this.  Students can now utilize tools such as blogs to reflect on their activities.

Today’s technology “increases the range and diversity of information available” to students.   The diversity opens new doors for learners and provides unique view points.  These view points can now provide a basis for students to form critical judgments about how they should live their lives through opportunity and critical reflection.  This takes the pressure off of the instructor to coach each individual student and spreads the responsibility to the network.

Schön would also favor the use of virtual worlds where students could theoretically experience life like situations.  These worlds could serve as a practicum of sorts, allowing students to interact a life like environment.  In fact some schools are already experimenting with this.  Harvard Law School has developed a virtual courtroom for the potential lawyers in Second Life.  Law students now can simulate the courtroom before actually experiencing a “real” court.  If reflections were associated with the virtual worlds, they would be great.

Tenner

Tenner serves as a good devil’s advocate.  He would be torn on the issue of incorporating the information economy into the classroom.  He would point out the benefits – students from all over working together and the amount of information available.  All of these characteristics solve some sort of problem within a learner’s environment.  Social collaboration can lead to new views on problems and the ability to access information provides opportunity for unique learning situations. 

The problem, as Tenner would certainly point out is the consequences that have arrived from these “solutions.” Although all the benefits have been touted, there are potential issues.  The amount of information available may provide an overload on the students.  In addition, Tenner would point out the digital divide and the consequences of arming one group of students with technological tools and forgetting another.

Brooks

            Brooks would have a very unique view on this situation.  I believe he would side with Simon in a lot of his beliefs such as the fact that processes must be hierarchical and rely on a top-down approach.  This contradicts the “open environment” the information age excels in providing.  Information comes from many sources and users are free to build their own experiences and learn from them. 

            Finally, Brooks would argue even if higher education was restructured to incorporate more features from the information economy, we would still have problems.  There isn’t one solution that would solve all the problems.  For example, incorporating more social interactivities doesn’t answer the time factor problem.  It may even enhance the problem.  Open source software isn’t built over the course of 10-15 weeks.  It takes many users many months to contribute and enhance the software.  The same idea would apply to the classroom setting.

Poole

I think, as Brooks, this is only one possible solution to enhancing the educational settings.  It is hopefully evident to anyone who has sat in a classroom that the traditional lecture isn’t effective.  Although students may hear or read the right things from the professor, it’s questionable on how much information is actually retained.  Providing things like interactive discussions and active learning situations is much more effective in building long lasting learning environments.  Yes, the tools of the information economy can help in building these types of environments.  Online collaborative tools can help students experience new situations and interact with others, who have differing levels of knowledge.

One way to attack the time restriction problem is to build more informal learning situations into the curriculum.  This, too, can be done through the use of information technologies.  Giving students the ability to communicate with each other outside the classroom provides the potential to increase the level of interaction among the class.  Tools such as social software environments and synchronous technologies could allow users to collaborate outside of class on projects.

The most effective way is to “fix” the education problem is focusing on how we structure the curriculum.  Even with the use of information and social technologies, if they aren’t built into the curriculum, they won’t be effective.  For example, fixed cohorts of students would provide a better opportunity for collaboration.  Social software sites work better when the users have something in common.  A cohort would provide this commonality.  I think we also need to provide more informal learning opportunities, which can be enhanced through collaboration technologies.  These opportunities could be represented by bringing in a virtual speaker or providing a forum for students to collaborate outside of class.

Finally, virtual or online environments should be seriously considered as a means to represent situations.  Although we aren’t there yet (anyone who has used Second Life would agree), there is limitless potential in creating unique and rewarding learning environments for students.  Combined with increased access to information and the ability to reflect on their work, learners should be able to improve upon their learning experience.