Virtual worlds and the "3D Web"

Having read the material and viewed the video clips, I have some ideas about this 3D web business and some questions as well.

I can see some promise in this, particularly once they are developed a little further and perhaps they won't require as much time to "build." Second Life sounds interesting to me, but I doubt I will sign up anytime soon; I truly do not need anything else to distract me at this point in my life and studies. Perhaps someday. It seems that it is something that I should keep an eye on in a broader sense, though. There definitely are some exciting possibilities.

A few months ago I knew nothing about any of the virtual reality games and worlds. My 9 yr old son bought Sim City 4 (I think) at his school's book fair, (a dagger in my heart--why would anybody ignore books in favor of...anything! But I digress...) I had no idea he would become as interested as he has, and an even bigger surprise is how he has learned from it. He has come to us and asked so many questions: "Dad, does the Mayor get to keep all the money people pay in taxes?" Thus began his first Civics lesson (from me). "I heard some man on TV complaining about taxes. But on Sims its the taxes that pay for the roads, bridges, and buildings. What do taxes pay for in the real world?" First discussion of tax policy and infrastructure. So I know that these "games" actually do stimulate thinking.

However, maybe it's my age, or the fact that I'm not a computer whiz, but part of me can't help but view all of this as a high tech dog and pony show. I understand that these tools are useful to develop interest in the topic for the students, and that many, if not most, students learn more effectively through some sort of hands-on method than passively through lectures or even film presentations. But when does it all degenerate into simply entertaining the students? Must we entertain them? Would it be better if we simply turned on the computer and let it teach the lesson? Of course it wouldn't, but I do see that notion as a potential pitfall that mediocre teachers could fall back on; it could be a sort of "shut up and color!" mindset that would be manifestly unproductive in the classroom.

On the other hand, I can see great value in being able to re-create historical events for the students to work with, in order to get some orientation to the events themselves. To grab a quick example, to be in the crowd in Derry on Jan 30, 1972, and see what really happened on Bloody Sunday. Or perhaps on the Mall in Washington, among the throngs who stood and listened to MLK speak so eloquently about his dream. It could be a VR replacement for the old films I watched as a kid, Walter Cronkite's CBS news show "You Are There." I can see great value in this, especially if film, photos, etc. can be integrated without alteration, to avoid the interpretive license pitfalls. (It seems enough people already believe an alternate version of historical truth is being taught in schools.)

Lest I be seen to be running down games, I know there is value in video games to some extent. I've read that the military claims that today's pilots are much more quick to adapt to the environment of the cockpit than were those recruits of my generation. (I saw that firsthand, again with my son when we went to the Kalamazoo Air Zoo. We "rode" the F-18 simulators and while I began piloting the plane, I switched over to let my son man the stick and he was much smoother and better at it than I am. He has far more experience using inputs such as joysticks etc. than I do; mechanical inputs such as those used driving a car have a much different feel than do the electronic inputs, and I was at a distinct disadvantage.

I think once we figure out how to use them, how to harness their potential and minimize the risks, apps such as Second Life and others will be very useful in the classroom. I just don't think we're as close as we think we are.