I haven’t been able to focus as intently as I like on my topic this week since I’m at the conference but have enjoyed the time I have spent exploring and reading. I feel like I have a basic understanding of MUDS and MOOs. <\/p>\n
Besides the text vs. image issue I discussed earlier, what I’ve been thinking about is some of the technical aspects of MOOs. The unofficial programming guide got pretty detailed, pretty quickly, and seemed “geeky” even to me. I read some directions for installing a MOO and it was pretty complicated. So, I would suppose that the MOO would have to be set up by someone else besides a classroom teacher (MOOSECrossing is a good example) and then teachers could sign on. When I get a minute, I am planning to request to be added to MOOSECrossing to see what’s going on, if anything. That being said, I immediately wanted to create my own MOO and could see how students would be intrigued. What a great project to encourage creative, descriptive writing.<\/p>\n
One of my wondering is why MOOs (like LOGO) never really seemed to catch on. Is it because they demand a different mind set about what kids should be doing and learning in school? If these technologies had been introduced in a less standards-oriented world, would they have had more of a chance? I’m reading Everything Bad is Good for You<\/em> by Steven Johnson in which he discusses how video games and even contemporary television shows require higher order thinking skills than the shows I grew up with like Happy Days <\/em>or Bonanza<\/em>. MOOs certainly put decision making in the hands of students, allowing them to explore and create in a way that would be difficult to grade in traditional ways.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I haven’t been able to focus as intently as I like on my topic this week since I’m at the conference but have enjoyed the time I have spent exploring and reading. I feel like I have a basic understanding of MUDS and MOOs. Besides the text vs. image issue \u2026 Continue reading