Evaluating student work in Second Life can take many forms. Presented below are two quite different mechanisms for evaluating rather different projects. Example one used Second Life to deliver summaries of an anthology of poems and to comment on the themes. 90% of the work was similar to that which would have been set in a traditional RL class, but the students were supported (so they could ask for builds, scripts, etc.) to present their work interactively in Second Life to a visiting audience. Example two has students building more extensively in Second Life and doing more of the work themselves - they are being assessed not only on the academic content, but the presentation and use of Second Life in that presentation. As always, if you have comments or suggestions for alternative methods I would be very happy to receive them and add them to this page. There is also a blog post on my blog to encourage comments that way.

The rubrics have been anonymised and are used with permission. You may also like to look at the project assessment and learning assessment pages.

Example One - assessing Second Life work to present traditional work forms Example two - assessing student work to present, the content and the mode of presentation to be assessed

In this project, students were asked to focus on a theme in the anthology (marriage, education, role of women) and teach vistors about the poetry and issues surrounding that theme.

You are asked to judge the exhibits on:

  1. Does the exhibit include poems from the anthology? Are these poems related to the theme they have picked?
  2. Is the display interactive?
  3. Are the notecards well written? Are there a lot of errors? Is information documented?
  4. Did you learn anything about the author, the time that the anthology was written, and the issue presented here?

  1. Arrival/orientation
    1. Is it clear where the avatar is supposed to go on arrival?
    2. Is the theme of the build made clear immediately on arrival?
    3. Is it clear for whom the build is intended?
    4. Is there a stated list of objectives?
  2. Navigation
    1. Is it clear which path the avatar should take or the options that are available?
    2. Are avatars encouraged to change environment settings to make the most of the build?
    3. Is navigation within the build obvious?
    4. Is it easy to find the start again if appropriate?
    5. Is it easy to get between different parts of a build, e.g. via teleports?
    6. Can avatars exercise choice in navigation?
    7. Are the different parts of the build adequately distinguished?
    8. Does the build cater satisfactorily for different avatar sizes?
    9. Does the build cater for social use, e.g. by pairs or groups of avatars?
    10. Is the build camera-friendly, i.e. the avatar camera stays within walls and isn't subject to "bounce" and newbies aren't forced to use complex camera movements?
  3. Content
    1. Is the build interactive?
    2. Is interactivity related to the topic?
    3. Is interactivity varied?
    4. Does the build exploit the potential to provide an alternative to real-life experiences?
    5. Does the build make use of the third, z dimension?
    6. Is the build "kinetic", i.e. does it encourage movement and navigation?
    7. Do the structural elements used have relevance to the topic?
    8. Is there sufficient variety to the build?
    9. How accurate and topical is the information provided?
    10. Are there any accidental examples of cognitive dissonance, e.g. fluids appearing to flow uphill.
    11. Is there use of humour where appropriate?
  4. Images
    1. Are images clear?
    2. Do images rez quickly?
    3. Is the relevance of images clear or satisfactorily explained?
    4. Are images properly attributed and respecting copyright?
  5. Information as text
    1. Is information supplied to an appropriate level of detail?
    2. Is information supplied in the right order?
    3. Is information supplied in the right place?
    4. Is information satisfactorily referenced?
    5. Is text properly formatted, grammatically correct and without spelling mistakes?
  6. Multimedia
    1. Is there any use of audio, video or web pages?
    2. Does such use add to the experience?
  7. Conclusion
    1. Is there some means for avatars to test their understanding at the conclusion, e.g. summary, points for discussion, quiz?
    2. Is it likely that their understanding will have increased?
    3. Is there any information regarding other places the avatar might go on the same or related topics?

Of course these approaches and assessments, particularly the second one, might be useful for you to assess the impact of your classes materials and builds for Second Life too!

I am not in any way affiliated with Linden Lab. This site advertises my work within their virtual environment. Valid CSS!

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional The terms Second Life, Linden Lab and SL are trademarks belonging to Linden Lab. No infringement of their trademark is intended. Usage here is nominative.


Learner's Materials
1 Walking (etc.)
2 Talking (etc.)
3 Shopping (etc.)
4 Interacting
5 Searching
Teacher's Materials
1 Conduct
2 Good approaches
3 Poor approaches
4 Changes in approach
5 Assessment in SL
6 Assessing a project
7 Assessing learning
Specific Tutorials
1 Building
2 Int. Building
3 Camera Controls
4 Groups
5 Land
6 Limits of SL
7 Scripting
8 Textures

Join Second Life
Read my blog