I was turned down for what I thought was my dream job because:
“Although I’m sure you have varied interest in the field of Instructional Design, your sharp focus on Second Life is what we remember most about you. Online role-play is an exciting field. However, it is not in line with the current and future direction of the college. … This suggests to us that the position may not be a good fit for you.”
Wow – that was hard to hear! I thought that I had emphasized my instructional design experience, not the SL work. I mean, yeah, a lot of what I have done is IN SL, but it’s not ABOUT SL; it’s about effective design in an emerging technology where teaching and learning ARE different than RL; sometimes better, sometimes worse. The fun part is finding out when it’s which! Of course, there’s also the issue that NONE of my work has been in role-play, but that’s just a misconception that I don’t really care about clearing up. I thought about this all week, wondering what I could have done differently.
All of the work I have done in Second Life revolves around the pedagogy of effective design in an emerging technology. I am passionate about Second Life as a teaching tool in part because I believe it offers a sense of presence and social networks that would be extremely costly and difficult to replicate in real life. Also, because I believe in a future that holds a world wide web of virtual worlds and I love being part of the grass roots of such a vision. I have had numerous opportunities to practice my skills in instructional design; experience that I would never have had without SL. I’ve grown as a leader, as a designer and as a teacher. I’ve published papers and presented at conferences. My skills are honed, not limited, by my experience in this virtual world.
I think the lesson I take away from this interview is that I need to emphasize how my experience with design weaves throughout the technology I use and de-emphasize SL when I present myself.
December 6, 2008 at 1:03 am
Wow! Silvertomorrow sorry you hit the virtual wall of prejudice! There obviously is a need for a lot more education on Virtual Worlds. VWs are just still too cutting edge for now. Yet it is highly probable VWs will be mainstream in 5 years. The biggest problem with Second Life is the publicity it attracts for its seedy side. It is way too dull for newspapers to discuss the amazing educational aspects of this virtual space. As a result very simplistic assumptions are made by people who don’t know what they are talking about! I wonder if it makes sense to emphasize VWs, social presence and the future of online education rather than be specific about Second Life? I also wonder whether Second Life will ultimately be the platform of preference? I see it as a step on the way but restricted by its own conflicting values and policies! The institution that turned you down made a mistake, they were being very short sighted and narrow minded. Perhaps in the final analysis you are best off not working within their particular ‘olde worlde culture’!
December 6, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Cyberloom,
I agree heartily with your statement, “it makes sense to emphasize VWs, social presence and the future of online education rather than be specific about Second Life” and I wonder the same about SL and its future. For now it’s what we have and it’s really too bad that it has to be de-emphasized because of bad advertising. But, hey I can play the game.
I do appreciate your supportive words, but I want to say that I think the institution that turned me down is visionary in its own ways. Maybe the leadership there just didn’t necessarily see my “kind” of visionary as fitting with “their kind.” And that’s ok, cuz you’re right, there are other organizations out there who will want me, and I will be a better fit.
Thanks so much for your insights!
December 8, 2008 at 4:25 am
You know, if the institution you interviewed gave you feedback that was this detailed, they probably had a generally positive opinion. It did not sound like a “form letter” rejection. I think there is a difference between SL as an exploration/research tool and the type of instructional tool/environment most institutions expect to be applied immediately. If you are lucky, you will end up at a place that encourages both.
December 8, 2008 at 7:16 am
Thanks for the comment, Mark. You’re right, this was a very thoughtful response which I greatly appreciated. I learned a lot from it and told the person that he really had a profound effect on me – which is true. I hear what you’re saying about the difference between the types of tools being used; I have and did display the other, more applicable tools as well.
What’s really REALLY interesting to me is that I received similar feedback from another interview; people on the committee didn’t see how my SL/Alice/Twitter experience and tutorials related to the position I was interviewing for. Even though the TOOLS I was demonstrating were Articulate, Presenter and Captivate and even though I walked them step by step through the logic of the design!! Lucky for me, one of the people on the committee was an instructional designer who explained to them that it was my understanding of ID principles and my ability to apply them to various tools that was really the point.
I think I will deliberately explain what I wrote above the next time I interview. I guess I’m still a novice and maybe a little naive about some things!