Second Chance for Second Life
When I began researching virtual worlds a year ago, I had difficulty finding the value for educators. In all my research, the best examples I could find, were those involving social activities and communications studies, such as Sarah Robbins’ rhetoric classes. While there were stellar examples of scientific simulations, I couldn’t see the pedagogical value in them. I have struggled to support education in virtual worlds, made even more difficult when people realize I wrote the trends analysis they frequently reference.
In the last few weeks, I have discovered a side of Second Life (SL) I had not previously explored. In all my research, I never used it as a place to meet with people I already know and associate with outside SL. Our State Board has purchased an island in SL and I have volunteered to participate in the development and management. I have held back, not wanting to give a harsh opinion or influence the potential growth. We have attempted a few chaotic meetings, but nothing I would consider a success. This week we will be running a workshop for faculty and I’ve offered to help facilitate. At the same time, Alec Couros will be introducing his grad students to SL and conducting a tour.
With so many familiar participants, I jumped back into SL and was suddenly struck by the difference in my perception while experiencing the virtual world with others. I’ve met with a few other network friends in SL, but usually it was a short meeting with a particular purpose. The recent activities have all centered around exploring and learning. I have been amazed at how quickly we have been able to share our SL knowledge and ramp up our in-world skills. Cindy picked it up and became a pro in one day! I think the new voice features have helped me transition my opinion and realize there is potential value in SL for learning.
One of the greatest things I have found is that it continues to strengthen the bonds between the members of my network. Rob Wall began examining these connections and I proposed that part of the development of these connections was our link to others who have met in person. I also believe our connections are strengthened when we connect with others through multiple media. Last night George Siemens invited the network to join him in a new tool, Chatterous. We had a light hearted conversation about how this was another dimension strengthening the network bonds.
I truly feel our connections are reinforced when we participate with the other members of our network on multiple planes. While I initially struggled with the idea of having to log into several platforms to communicate with an individual, I now recognize that these different tools allow us to learn more about our online colleagues and discover additional connection points. So many of us are isolated in our physical work environments, with very little connection to others performing the same work. I’ve previously likened Twitter to working in cubicles. Adding in richer tools, such as SL, seesmic, utterz, Chatterous, photophlow, dimdim, ustream and others helps to create a better simulation of a traditional work environment.
Now we are more than just cube-mates. We’ve had water cooler conversations, attended meetings together, gone to the company picnic, shared in the white-elephant giving at holiday parties, commiserated over management and infrastructure and celebrated our success stories. I can now add Second Life to my pool of social tools that add value to the professional relationships I have worked to create in my online network. I will give it a second chance and try to explore and publish more options for learners.
March 11th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Jen,
I was glad to see that you shared many of my reservations concerning SL. Too many times I think ed tech folks guard their opinion’s and hold them too closely when it is us who should be the most opened minded. You have reminded me of that. Perhaps I too shoudl give SL a second chance?
John
March 11th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Last night was my first event in SL at an ISTE meeting and I found it very interesting. Of course I have been going and practicing about 15-20 min. a day so I could feel more comfortable when I came across people. This helped me focus on the real purpose of the event and I felt a lot of meaningful discussion came about last night.
March 11th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
I’m still unconvinced about SL. It seems like so much effort and energy is being put into recreating this physical world there, rather than exploring the possibilities of a world without the constraints of this one. I have to chuckle at “chairs” and “tables” (and “bookshelves”
in SL. WTF? I’m not sure what a more meaningful representation would be, but I hate to think that the best we can do is to mirror this world there, for Linden Labs…
March 11th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
I am not sure what you mean by “pedagogical value.” What is the pedagogical value of a pencil? If you mean whether or not people can use SL as a tool for teaching and learning, then yes, it has pedagogical value. The simulations that are being built in SL (I am thinking here of John Miller’s cardiac sim) allow students to be faced with situations that they may not run into on a regular basis in a clinic and be given a chance to make decisions and see the results of those decisions in real time. This can be done in the face-to-face classroom only at great expense (cardiac simulators in face-to-face classrooms can run $70,000). Models, simulations, role-playing, and group projects, etc. all have a pedagogical value and SL can facilitate these. The pedagogical value never comes from the tool itself but from the people using it. There is certainly a lot in SL that has little “pedagogical value” but the same can be said for any other human enterprise such as Blackboard. I have seen Bb courses that were interactive, rich experiences, and I have seen them being used as .pdf libraries. As for our meetings, we had two meetings on Evergreen with people still trying to figure out how to sit down. As the freshness wears off, I am sure things will be less chaotic. This is a new technology for many in the DLC. I am sure those people will appreciate your input and support.
March 11th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
D’Arcy, I completely agree about recreating the real world. It does not make sense. Bonking into walls is one of the most frustrating things about SL. However, it was a little bit fun today to put some furniture in a space where people gathered. I was multitasking, so it was more of a parking place while we did the voice chat. I think if you’re using it just to pull a group of people together to talk and play, representations of things that give comfort in the real world aren’t necessarily counterintuitive.
Geoff, I question any simulation in SL and would have to see the actual demonstration to determine whether it has instructional value. I honestly think many people create something they think is a simulation, but really only teach students how to control an avatar. I’m not certain I would want to be treated by a medical practitioner who completed their simulation training in SL, regardless of the expense. I won’t judge your particular project, because I haven’t seen it. I’ll follow up after Thursday’s event.
March 11th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
What I’ve learned is I can’t make a judgment on the utility of a tool or environment based on my experiences alone. Like D’Arcy, the world recreation doesn’t add value to me. But I’ve seen it be GAME CHANGING for others. So I have to ask about my preferences as well as my intellectual evaluation of a tool.
So it may not be about simulation, but a different experience which changes the learning opportunity.
Signed Nancy who is a total klutz and feels immeasurably inadequate in Second Life
March 11th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Nancy, that’s a great point. I think that’s why when I researched it in the first place, I spent more time talking to people about their experiences. I knew I couldn’t examine all the opportunities. And you can’t be as klutzy as me. I was walking around bald and nekkid today with a billboard through my body.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
[...] injenuity Second Chance for Second Life Quote from the site - When I began researching virtual worlds a year ago, I had difficulty finding [...]
March 29th, 2008 at 11:35 am
There’s a novelty aspect to SL as there is with many truly emerging technologies (emergent not being necessarily a property based on how long something has been around… and this novelty, in fact, leads to a weak point in George’s attempts to defend his idea that it’s better to “put technology first”) that gets conflated with other characteristics. People are entranced with the newness of being in-world, but there appears to be a very steep drop-off when those same people are asked to come to SL again and again.
Like D’Arcy, I remain unconvinced at the utility of Second Life, but I also recognize that at good part of that comes from what I do and what I LIKE to do. So, as usual, I try to limit my own bias and figure out where SL makes sense by allowing an instructor to accomplish something in their teaching environment and if it makes sense and the benefits seem to outweigh the drawbacks, then I say “go for it.”