Avatars and Learning

In a recent article in FederalComputerWeek I read that the Air Force is using Second Life for virtual training, and that the Navy also has an application in Second Life. The article was touting the benefits of distance learning (reduced travel costs, less time away from desks for participants, the ability to reach global audiences with a single delivery) and particularly the benefits Second Life brings to distance learning (3D environment, avatars, the ability to interact with other virtual participants).

The article got me thinking for several reasons. For one, our team designs distance learning programs, and clients are increasingly interested in this training option because of the cost-saving benefits I listed above, which are particularly attractive in today's economy. We focus on making all our training relevant enough to the job that participants will be able to easily make the connection between a learning objective and on-the-job application, which includes designing online environments related to the specific work setting of the client. However, we haven't used Second Life as a way to deliver that training, and while I can see the benefit of the ability to interact with other virtual participants, the 3D environment and particularly the avatar are what make me hesitant to jump onto the Second Life bandwagon.

I'm not disputing the fact that 3D environments are interesting. They are. But are they more effective for training? If you're doing simulations, then they probably are, but the article talks about using Second Life to replicate a classroom environment. For the participants in the agencies discussed in the article, maybe that's the best learning environment, but in general, creating a virtual classroom sounds like a lot of time and effort invested in recreating a place many adults don't want to be in the first place. If the 3D environment isn't enhancing the application and job-relevance of the content, then it may be more fancy distraction than fancy learning tool.

Avatars are really what make me question Second Life as a learning tool, however. As you may have guessed, I don't spend my free time in Second Life. I found the experience of creating a new and better version of me--my virtual "brand" as the article called it--and building an entire second life for myself to be, for lack of a better word, creepy. And tiresome. The endless options (the length of my hair, the size of my nose, the color of my shirt) and vastness of the program ("How do I get somewhere...else?") quickly went from fun to overwhelming, and I'm of the generation that's supposed to be most interested in virtual worlds. Far from being a time-saving effort, my first experience with virtual training led to hours of time wasted trying to figure out how to fly across a river, whether my oddly-named avatar looked better in pink or blue, wondering how I was supposed to talk to the other floundering new-born avatars, and hoping I could figure that out before I had to attend training with my virtual co-workers...assuming I could ever get to the training.

My point here is that without practice, Second Life isn't necessarily efficient. I couldn't talk, much less get my avatar to interact physically with objects to simulate an on-the-job experience. And not all participants are going to be interested in "practicing" in Second Life, particularly if their only forays into the program are work-related. Once again, it seems the fancy learning tool can quickly become a fancy, time-sucking distraction.

This isn't my final judgement on Second Life. Part of the point of the program is that there are lots of possibilities, and for certain audiences and certain types of training, it may provide better solutions than traditional training. But if you are considering implementing a distance learning program, I think it's important to step back from the hype of "cutting edge" and really assess the goals of your training and the culture and needs of your audience before following the trend of Second Life.