Response to David Horgan's Second Life Post

I am responding to David Horgan's post about the strengths and limitations of Second Life:

http://eac539postdochorganphd.blogspot.com/2012/09/second-lifes-strengths-and-limitations.html

His mention of Linden Labs "dollar" system is a valid one.  Renting space or purchasing land can get expensive.  Baker et al. (2009) states that "costs can vary from several hundred to several thousand dollars, depending on the amount of land and the complexity of the campus design."  The virtual space must also be maintained, which can take a considerable amout of time depending on the goal.  Horgan mentions that Second Life is a great place for a meeting, where users can have an avatar.  Interaction can be formal or informal.  In a meeting environment, the avatar provides a level of anonymity that could encourage participation in the virtual world.  "In some cases, a student who is reluctant to comment or ask questions in class might feel more comfortable doing so in a virtual world"  (Baker, 2009).  Groups can also take "field trips" to different locations that have been built by other users.  This is certainly a cost-effective way to add class content.  Finally, I agree with Horgan when he says that creating spaces in Second Life takes time and presents a challenge for new users.  Buying land is expensive, but if the space is maintained and used for multiple purposes, it could be worth the cost.  It seems as if NC State's space is a good example.

Reference

Baker, S., Wentz, R., & Woods, M. (2009). Using virtual worlds in education: second life as an educational tool. Teaching of Psychology, 36(1), 59-64. doi: 10.1080/00986280802529079