I was genuinely encouraged to continue reading by a statement right at the beginning of Boellstorff’s article, whereby all virtual world users are engaged in a role play throughout all of their online time. I particularly agree with one user quoted in the text who said that people – no matter if deliberately role-playing or not – “tend to suppress certain aspects of their personality and accentuate others”. In other words, people would rather keep their flaws (e.g. of looks or character) their own secret, thus gaining more self-confidence in their contacts with each other.

The most interesting part of Boellstorff’s study of SL was his deliberation on gender, transgenderism, gender-switching and cross-dressing. There seems to be a strong link between user’s choice of his/her avatar’s gender (and clothes he/she is wearing in SL) and the user’s behaviour or attitude. Apparently, a common practice these days is to have two avatars simultaneously, each one of different gender. This means to allow us to experience, not only observe, what it feels to be the opposite gender. Among other reasons of virtual gender swaps the author mentions: ‘reflecting upon one’s gender’ or simply willingness to be left alone (usually for a woman to be left alone by men). I truly believe that still there might be other underlying reasons for such gender swaps, which could possibly form a solid base for a psychoanalytical discussion. I will gladly attempt to have one with my friend, an expert in Freud, when the nearest opportunity arises. I also find it striking how stubbornly the users may protect their actual RL [real life] gender from being revealed, treating such cases as breaches of their cherished and valued privacy.

 

A completely different, yet equally interesting, aspect of virtual worlds is being discussed in another article of this week’s reading list, the text on the Daedalus Project. The topic under scrutiny, among others, is the 3-D graphics available in some virtual worlds, including Second Life.

I had always thought of the 3-D graphics as an element that helps to immerse in the virtual reality, to feel that by trying to copy the world around us I will engage in the virtual world to the full extent. It seems to work perfectly well in games. Naturally, then, it should work for all other platforms, too. And yet, I had never realised that the underlying function of copying real world laws to a virtual world is to limit us and slow us down in achieving our game goals. Therefore, using it in education or business, for instance, may not be of much help after all, other than that of an extra feature (such as e.g. more light in a room).

It works well in Second Life and other MUVEs, I thought. And yet what is the point of changing clothes, observing the ‘social proxemics’, and sitting in chairs in the world where we do not get cold, can not push or touch each other or get tired of standing.

 

The Daedalus Project text did make me realise, however, that the 3-D may in fact be there for other reasons. It seems to form a ‘familiar metaphor for interaction,’ where simplest conversations can go by as comments on the weather, somebody’s looks or clothes, presence in a virtual place of common interest. The 3-D virtual reality is a ground for a conversation in itself, just like the real world is.

 

Isn't there too much focus on the form over the content in this video, then? (couldn't add as an ext. vid.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD2JseYe-Rk&feature=related

My stance with respect to Second Life reality is that of extending and freely recreating myself. I opt to shape my virtual self, overcoming the limitations of my real self imposed on me by the circumstances I am in (me being in a particular place in the world, constrained by the laws of nature, subject to weather and health matters). I like to think of Peter Nitely as an improved me. Yet, at first I inadvertently chose my avatar to be as similar to me as possible, thus selecting the gender options for ‘male’, in late 20’s, blonde, white, skinny, dressing quite casually. I even tried to match his name as closely as possible to mine.

My interactions with other SL users won’t differ much from my real life interactions, where I wouldn’t try to bother strangers with conversations, or wouldn’t act foolishly, even though I am fully aware of still being completely anonymous in SL. In fact I have yet to explore the SL’s social use.

I am very glad with our group Second Life session and the first striking feature I noticed was the observance of the “social proxemics”, characterised by us walking in an organised manner to an agreed area, apologising each other when stumbling on or pushing somebody, sitting down and facing each other while talking, etc. All these came very naturally to each one of us; we submerged into our virtual identities as students quite easily. But what if the task was more difficult than just taking part in a discussion? What if new skills and new knowledge were to be gained?

 

Answers to this question are provided quite extensively by Gee. According to him if children cannot make associations between their real-world identities (who they are, what values they represent) and their virtual identities (who they can become), the learning process will fail. In fact, according to Gee, helping to form such associations is what teacher’s role should be about. With the right assistance from the teacher, students will make the right associations between the available identities, thus moving from the real identity (as represented by “That’s what I think), to virtual identity (as represented by “That’s what I would think if I was a…”). The final step being the student’s realisation of their projective identity could be represented by “That’s what I’ll think right here and now, being this type of person”.

Possibly a good and simple explanation of Gee’s ideas is mentioning passive versus active -or critical- learning. Learning things without being able to refer them to one’s own goals or to own context, has much smaller chances of being remembered and mastered by a student than learning critically, knowing what the particular knowledge and skill will help one with. Gee’s video game example, accompanied by succinctly explained learning principles is a must read for any ambitious educator.

The article opposes the statement that the technology should follow the learning and teaching objectives.

 

The main argument of the text is that cyberspace allows for a different from traditional structure. The tree-shaped organisation of traditional knowledge (from biology to linguistics) allows for one way of learning – following an ordered sequence of what elements of knowledge are to be learnt one after another. The tree stems from a root, from which we can proceed via branches to growths. This leaves a learner with a duly pre-arranged sequence of learning, with little space for individual experimenting, moving to certain parts of knowledge more interesting to the particular learner.

According to Cousin, cyberspace compares well to the structure of rhizome. With all elements connected to any other ones, all parts of a given knowledge can be accessed at any given time, adjusting the learning sequence to one’s personal interests and requirements.  Learning becomes custom-made, bespoke, personal, thus interesting and engaging. That seems to be advantageous for the learners, since the pace, difficulty level, and personal interest are factors that can greatly affect one’s learning progress.

There are certain drawbacks of such personalised online learning, however. Those mentioned by Cousin include e.g. high negotiability and reliability of learning sources and available materials. With near-endless resources the obvious problem is where to start reading. Sieving the right from the wrong creates learners who engage in the never-ending search for information, merely ‘surfing’ on the surface of knowledge, rather than reaching deep into it and acquiring it.

Moreover, the power of the internet lies in its social structure, in the WEB 2.0 participatory creation, interoperability, and cooperation. High individualism focuses excessively on taking and using rather than collaborating in creation, thus reducing the role of social networking sites, blogs, wikis, video sharing sites, hosted services, web applications, mashups and folksonomies, all such useful in the cyberspace learning.

Such ‘cherry-picking’ learning style, characteristic of the Net-Generation, may highly diminish the role of an in-depth research, too. Students may be satisfied with snaps of information that may be available quickly, with little critical thinking.

All this does not change the fact that the contemporary learning style is and will continue to change as the technology available constantly develops. I do agree with Cousin on that technologies are not instruments of our identities, they are its constitutive elements which not merely influence but change our social practises and the way new generations learn. According to Cousin, “technologies work dynamically with pedagogics, not for them. The moment a new device of communication is invented it changes our way of thinking, recreates our minds, creates new opportunities for thought.”

Undoubtedly, more large-scale research is needed to ascertain to what extent the personalisation of online learning is best to be allowed. We are facing a paradigm shift in the conception of the role of technology in pedagogy and we would better be thoroughly prepared for its arrival.

The ownership issue is a very complex one, depending on individual circumstances. It is probably easiest to assume that, since a given piece of work has been created by me solely, I myself should be its rightful owner. Period. Why, therefore, Intellectual Property studies thrive across universities? Clearly, there is more to that than just the above logic.

My opinion

My personal belief is that ownership rights of the content of PLEs and any work created during the study period should belong to the author him/herself. Such work, after all, is most frequently a result of unslept nights and hours spent in libraries/in front of a computer, desk, etc. To my astonishment, that was not the case with my former Polish alma mater, where the ownership to all my assignments, including a 20,000-word thesis belonged to the university.

Why is it so important?

That is a debatable matter. Mainly, because people are afraid that someone else is going to steal, copy or use the result of our effort, subsequently providing him/her with money, fame, recognition, success we would have gained otherwise. Petty reasons, all in all, but they can also be self-contentment with achievement or willingness to help others.

Who, if not us?

In learning environments the ownership of intellectual property may belong to the author, as well as a fellow student while collaborating, the supervisor, and research staff.

How is it determined?

A number of factors may intervene, namely: the given country’s law, the school’s policies, the external platform’s regulations, and principles of the given discipline.

Implications

The very fact that we know some external body is the rightful owner of our work may have a very adverse effect on our work. Simply out of fear of being intellectually robbed the quality of our performance may suffer greatly. We will simply not be willing to fully engage in the production process, knowing that we will not be adequately praised for our hard work. The content of the work is also likely to be less personal.

 

Many more details regarding this interesting topic can be found below:

 

• http://www.cags.ca/media/docs/cags-publication/Guide_Intellectual_Property.pdf
• http://blogs.msdn.com/b/alfredth/archive/2010/09/03/students-and-intellectual-property-rights.aspx