Week 11: Game On!

When I first heard of Second Life, I thought it seemed silly, that it was mostly a form of entertainment for computer geeks who create fake personas because they are too awkward for the real world.  However, the readings this week opened my eyes to its advantages, especially in an educational sense.

The Positives:

Virtual worlds such as Second Life seem to provide opportunities that would be more difficult to carry out in the real world, such as the example given in the Educause article of a medical student practicing her interactions with patients. I can see these types of situations being lost as a result of needing to set up a location, and requiring the people who are willing to act as patients and supervisors to meet there, which would take up much more time.  However, using an SL simulation would allow all participants greater flexibility, and therefore probably more chances to practice such scenarios. I think this would help people to better know what to expect in their careers once they finish schooling, and lessen the problem that many face (including myself) with having learned all theory and no practicality.  It does make sense to at least attempt this form of interaction, especially in an educational sense, since more and more people are comfortable with computers, and a large majority of those in university/college have grown up in the digital era (I'm generalizing here of course).  It's a smart move to take advantage of this generational effect and apply it as a way of learning.  But although these seem like great potential benefits, I would take them with a grain of salt.

The Negatives:

Something fundamental is lost when people are not communicating face-to-face, because people are in a different mode of thinking when people are using their computers and focus less on having effective social skills that cannot be communicated by typing.  Having said that, I think there's definitely some disconnect between applying what you've learned online to real interactions. A Second Life interaction could certainly be a good primer for real-life situations, but the latter must also be practiced separately.  Finally, it is important to think of the user groups that are being targeted using such virtual worlds, and Sara de Freitas pointed out, generational differences exist among potential users of this learning tool, which may put less technologically-inclined individuals at a disadvantage.

In libraries:

As far as incorporating games and virtual worlds into libraries, the Meet the Gamers article made a good point in stating that librarians cannot afford to ignore gamers, as they comprise a large group among the 30 and under crowd.  These types of programs also hold the same values the library does, of being an "affinity space" (described in the same article), where "participants don't care about identity, age, race, gender, class, or nationality. Nor is value given to credentials, degrees, or affiliations."  I can see how other gaming/pseudo gaming possibilities that were described in the readings and case studies (such as the InfoLit games from U of Kentucky and U of North Carolina) may help develop information literacy and searching skills without preaching to the patron, or making them feel like their being given a lesson;  this underscores the importance of intrinsic learning, that people are more apt to learn something if it is valuable to them.

In short, librarians have a responsibility to explore new information technologies that emerge, including virtual worlds and gaming programs. But they must keep in mind that while they may come up with ideas that seem exciting to them, are the patrons actually going to want to use it?  I don't think such things as Second Life are going to revolutionize the library anytime soon, but they have their potential benefits and should continue to be explored and experimented with, and then we will what changes happen in the library.