This past week in my distance education class we learned in and about Second Life. I first heard the buzz about Second Life when a branch president in Miami approached me about possibly doing some activities with young single adults within second life. He was considering buying real estate there and felt that there was significant opportunities to help build relationships between young adults. At the time I thought, "I have a hard enough time getting people gather together to meet in REAL life, why would I want to focus on this in a second life?
After class this past week, I have to confess that I still feel this way. It may just be that I came late to class, and so missed the part that would have convinced me. And I did think that the virtual "Sistine Chapel" was beautiful--but it could be just as beautiful as a learning object; I didn't see the value added by second life.
I can see the rationale that it provides a gathering place for people to meet who are separated by time and distance. But videoconferencing can do that as well, and for me to have the "avatar" VS a real person is distracting. If I can see video stream of the real person and get their real gestures, why go the avatar route?
There was a lot of discussion about the moral implications (e.g. people might exhibit more aberrant behavior in second life than in real life) but this was not a primary concern for me. If it was used in an educational way (as demonstrated by our guest instructor) I don't think much trouble would occur. The trouble would occur as one walks around in random places (and trouble occurs in real life when one walks around in random places).
Perhaps there are important implications for younger learrners--e.g. it might help them be more free in the learning, or it might be more interesting for them. I don't foreclose on the possibility of virtual worlds as educational tools; however, for the moment I say, "Second Life? ...Let's focus on real life!"
Posts
4 comments:
Ah. That's what I've been trying to get into words for the past couple of years...the great majority of the benefit I can see from SecondLife could just as easily, just as effectively, probably less expensively and more securely be done as a learning object. Well put.
Incidently, I definitely think there should be more learning objects like virtual sistine chapels and virtual breeding labs etc. But, I agree, I have yet to be convinced of the value-add of SecondLife.
In general, I agree. I've had a 2L account for years, but inevitably leave it dormant except for those 30-minute periods at conferences when I'm in a session where speaker is extolling the possibilities of 2L and I think, "Hm, I should give it another try..."
At the same time, however, I believe the potential of 2L has not been tapped. For instance, Jim Groom's infamous The Revolution Will be Syndicated (aka, Mother Trucking Zombies) presentation showed how 2L can in fact engage an audience in ways that are impossible in the normal world.
To me the biggest problem with Second Life is the amount of freedom that is given to the people who frequent it.
Not that I have problems with any of the rights guaranteed me by the constitution, but I think you need to draw the line somewhere. I know that many would argue with me on this, but I think that the effectiveness of 2L as a learning environment is weakened by the lack of structure there. Imagine if you had class every day at Disneyland. Or, imagine if walking to your school cafeteria each day you were exposed to pornographic images in the hallways?
Or, what if people kept jumping into your classroom while you were trying to teach?
One of the things that has made schools at all effective is that they provide a safe environment where you can focus on learning. Even if you don't agree with traditional schooling methods, it's hard to argue that schools don't at least TRY to give structure to the learning environment.
Post a Comment