This morning I'm being sidetracked by other people's blogs - and I've still got loads of them to explore.  I've followed up a link in Wayne's blog to transliteracy, which has got me enthused and opened up all sorts of other things to read and a video to watch.  I'm now torn; I need to get on with some tasks (I haven't done the group task adequately) but want to go off and explore a perspective that might have some bearing on what I do later for my dissertation. 

This is how it should be: an insight from someone else coming at just the right time for one of my own interests - and, I hope, stimulating me to write something that in turn motivates someone else to explore.  

On the other hand, the enthusiasm that's tempting me away from my tasks may need to be reined in. I'm now mentally reviewing my long career as a student and wondering if I hadn't been such a dilettante, I might have achieved more.  I think that students are constantly faced with such dilemmas. 

What's important is to add some proper thought to the enthusiasm.  For my next entry, i should give reasons for transliteracy being worth pursuing in my own context - or not, if that turns out to be the case.  

Gee is such an absorbing read and lots of wonderfully quotable nuggets like:

"But all learning is ... learning to play 'the game'. For example, literary criticism and field biology are different 'games' played by different rules. (They are different sorts of activities requiring different values, tools, and ways of acting and thinking; they are different domains with different goals and different 'win states')" p. 7

I have only just finished chapter 2, but I was interested in his notion of "semiotic domains" which he describes as "an area or set of activities where people think, act and value in certain ways" (p. 19). These "semiotic domains" employ a range of modalities (or multimodalities in this case) which would encompass the following:

• oral or written language
• images
• equations
• symbols
• sounds
• gestures
• graphs
• artifacts, etc

These modalities are embued with specific meanings which are communicated in very distinctive ways - in some respects I see these as being very similar to the idea of transliteracy which Sue Thomas (of PART) defines as:

" ... the ability to read, write and interact across a range of platforms, tools and media from signing and orality through handwriting, print, TV, radio and film, to digital social networks."

Transliteracy, then, becomes an umbrella term to include the likes of literacy, digital literacy, media literacy, information literacy, visual literacy and computer literacy (to name but a few). The idea of images and symbols that have become to represent real-world objects is as old as neolithic man and used by the ancient Egyptians in the form of hieroglyphics (we can include other cultures that made use of glyphics and pictograms here). It is interesting to see how symbols and imagery has come full circle with the power of the pixel and the ascension of nu-hieroglyphics like semacode and data matrix code which contain information tucked away within those barcode-like symbols and can now be captured and translated by mobile phone technology. What would the cognitive archaeologists make of these symbols in 2000 years time I wonder?

References

Gee, J.P. (2007). What Video Games Have To Teach Us About Learning And Literacy (Revised and Updated Edition). New York, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

I had deliberately left it quite late in the evening last night before venturing into Second Life (SL) as I wanted some time on my own to refamiliarise myself with the SL environment, the user interface and to ensure I had the latest update from from SL as I knew that there would be a Second Life Treasure Hunt game commencing next week. I also wanted to ensure that I had Team 2's SL contacts added to my SL contacts list.

I didn't get too far when I was approached by Dagma Kiranov (a.k.a. Iris Bosa) who had also popped up late into SL. After about 20 minutes typing messages between eachother - that strange typing motion that the avatar undertakes to inform the other user(s) that they are typing has been likened to "stroking the cat", Iris added her own metaphor by suggesting, given Wray's costume, that it looked like I was "playing the piano" - Iris asked "can I change my voice?". This struck me as an odd comment to make until I realised that she was talking about the speech feature within SL that was added several months ago. I plugged in my microphone headset and began to talk to Iris, like one does with Skype and presumably using the same kind of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology that Skype uses. It became clear what her question meant.

In Second Life, and indeed in other virtual worlds, the user invests a lot of time and effort to create their avatar and their "virtual" identity in a way that they want to be seen and perceived by other users within that shared world. One was able to further enhance that identity with the kinds of words and phrases that they used to talk to one another. In my mind's ear, I can "hear" Wray talking with a deep, rich, urbane voice, not too dissimilar to that of Christopher Lee's voice. But of course, the experience that the other user gets is not that of Wray sounding like Christopher Lee, they get Wray sounding very Kentish and not terribly deep, rich or urbane - you could almost hear the record scratch at that moment as reality breaks into the virtual world and these whole persona and identity that you have carefully created begins to unravel before your eyes.

Whilst there has been a lot of work in identity in terms of roles, gender, sexuality, demographic variables; I am not so sure whether any has been done on voice as an identity construct in terms of accent, dialect, pitch, etc. The inclusion of the speech feature within SL is a very interesting addition to the software's capabilities, but I wonder if it will have a detrimental effect on one's virtual presence and identity?

As part of the "Introduction to Digital Game-based Learning", this semester's cohort have been made up of 4 teams of 6 people who will work together as a team to either construct game-based tasks (for others to participate in) or take part in game-based tasks that have been given to us, as well as giving presentations to the other teams.

I am part of "Team 2" who consist of:

• Bill Babouris
• Myself
• Chris Hambley
• Eleisha John
• Marie Leadbetter
• Nicholas Palmer

I am very excited about the potential of group-based activities where the participants are at a distance and working remotely using a range of technologies like discussion boards, Skype and Second Life. It would be good to try a develop some kind of "good practice" guide that can be passed on to others who are also planning on this "virtual" approach to group work.

I feel as though I'm getting my places sorted out - I had something I wanted to say this morning but I felt it "belonged" to my other blog. It's interesting how they feel like different places.  But I've a little niggle; I'm asking myself if I'm being self-indulgent.  The answer is no, not really - there's plenty of space in these places, and my blogs don't displace any other things.  And people don't have to read them.  But I'll find it useful later to see how I write differently in different places.

Today's blogging may be displacement activity (like housework can be - though in my case obviously hasn't been recently).  We have a task to do in response to reading about research design approaches.  Fortunately, this relates to some of the stuff I was reading at the weekend when I was away from internet access.  However, I haven't read it all, just the stuff on ethnography and grounded theory which are probably the most likely to influence me. 

It would be interesting to try to think of different types of design in relation to the same research question and I think I'll tackle the task in this way.  I could perhaps try two research questions: a simple "obvious" one and one that I'm likely to want to consider for myself.  I'm now asking myself whether a tendency towards an interest in ethnography – combined with a resistance to "measuring" complex human things – is likely to determine the kind of research question I'm prepared to pursue.  I am conscious that I need to be more open to the range of approaches.

As a results of the "introduction to digital environments for learning" (IDEL) module and the research that I have been doing around the topic of digital literacy; I have crossed Marc Prensky's path many times over; he should also add agent provocateur to his list of roles. It started with my IDEL essay called "Bridging the Generation Gap: A Pathfinder's Tale" and this has led to presenting a talk called "The Generation Game: Exploding the myth behind the Net and Google Generations" to a number of organisations.

It's quite clear that I have issues with Prensky and the whole digital dichotomy of "natives" and "immigrants". These terms, according to Prensky, were coined by John Perry Barlow (1996, para. 12) in his "declaration of the independence of cyberspace". Prensky (2001a) and others have popularised (and added more to) these stereotypes to that they are now firmly cemented into the public domain like some kind of meme. Like Bayne and Ross (2007), I share the following sentiments which I explored in an earlier blog post:

"In the current political climate, talk of immigrants and natives inevitably evokes complexities and anxieties around migration, integration, and racial and cultural differences in Western society."

Indeed, Palfrey and Gasser (2008) want to reclaim the term "digital native" to mean something else entirely and suggests that:

“...rather than calling Digital Natives a generation – an overstatement, especially in light of the fact that only 1 billion of the 6 billion people in the world even have access to digital technologies – we prefer to think of them as a population … The vast majority of young people born in the world today are not growing up as Digital Natives.”

Prensky is rather keen on using a quote attributed to Dr Bruce D. Perry (now of Child Trauma Academy) which goes like "different kinds of experiences lead to different brain structures". In earlier copies of his now infamous papers, Dr Perry went under the name of "Dr Bruce D. Berry" and it's taken 8 years and a lot of flack before Prensky finally corrects it. At the heart of Prensky's work seems to lie a lot of scaremongering rhetoric that's not backed up with any references for the reader to check his claims against, it's quite an odd thing to do considering Prensky has 3 Master level degrees behind him. It's little wonder that Bennett, Maton & Kervin (2008) chastise Prensky and others after him by suggesting that:

“...proponents arguing that education must change dramatically to cater for the needs of these digital natives have sparked an academic form of ‘moral panic’ using extreme arguments that have lacked empirical evidence.”

This was echoed earlier by McKenzie (2007), using a little more sensationalist language, who accuses Prensky of being "guilty of 'arcade scholarship'". 

However, Baroness Susan Greenfield, the eminent neuroscientist and current Director of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, comes to Prensky's aid by suggesting that further research would be needed to see if there might be a link with the three-fold increase of the drug Ritalin over the last 10 years and the increased exposure of young children to unsupervised and lengthy hours in front of a [computer] screen which, in turn, means their young brains would get use to rapid responses (Settle, 2008).

I do agree with Prensky on one thing and that is the need for learning professionals to be able to "speak" using both "legacy" and "future" languages through the lens of "digital literacy" so that students are better prepared and better equiped to deal with the changing nature of their digital worlds.

References

Barlow, J.P. (1996). A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. [online]. Available at: http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html [Accessed 26 January 2009] 

Bayne, S. and Ross, J. (2007). The "Digital Native" and "Digital Immigrant": A Dangerous Opposition. Annual Conference of the Society for Research into Higher Education. December 2007.

Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), pp. 775-786. [online]. Available at: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/bjet/2008/00000039/00000005/art00002 [Accessed 26 January 2009]

McKenzie, J., (2007). Digital Nativism, Digital Delusions and Digital Deprivation. From Now On, 17(2). [online]. Available at: http://fno.org/nov07/nativism.html [Accessed 26 January 2008]  

Palfrey, J. & Gasser, U. (2008). Born Digital: Understand the First Generation of Digital Natives. New York: Basic Books. 

Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants II: Do They Really Think Differently?. On the Horizon, 9(6), NCB University Press.

Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), NCB University Press.

Settle, M. (2008). Is computer use changing children? BBC News, 15.08.2008. [online]. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7564152.stm [Accessed 26 January 2009]

An online game would be a useful example for this dissertation. Obviously I can't design a full-blown computer game myself, so examples would need to be perhaps:

• an existing digital game
• a game / role-play designed to take place in SecondLife

The former appeals because it can involve the learner trying again and again until successful / imroves. Can be engaging. Can be affective.

Concerns:

1. I haven't taken the digital gaming module!
2. not related to my current work in any way

Just what cultural factors might be expected to be influential? Some ideas are:

• unwillingness of Japanese learners to make mistakes in public / conformity
• 'shyness' (?)
• technological savvy / familiarity
• keeness on games

Potential hypothesis:

Because Japanese language learners are constrained by unwillingness to make mistakes in a 'real' class - because this would mean to 'lose face' and display weakness - interactive and engaging online language learning can provide a valuable tool for language learning.

Currently favouring the idea of researching the impact of cultural factors on online language learning by Japanese. This is influenced by my experiences teaching in Japan and also by Robson Appendix A, which argues for a useful and timely research topic that moves the field forward.

Hamish's reaction to this topic was to focus on "some specific hypotheses of just what factors might be expected to be influential."

There's a lot going on on the discussion board - and it's really good philosophical inquiry.  I last opened it yesterday late afternoon but first thing this morning there were 36 entries to look at.  And I'm going to be away until Sunday evening with no internet connection; at this stage of the course this could be a problem.  I'm taking the textbook with me so I can at least keep in touch with the ideas.  But after what I've just been looking at, I now want to take Notes from the Underground too - and Being and Nothingness if I have it, but I don't think I have.  But I was trying to travel light!

The debate about truth seemed slow to get going at first and now there is no stopping it.  I've contributed a few things and have nearly made several other observations but have stopped myself (I'm always interested when that happens).  In one case, i wanted to say something about Plato's Symposium (during our debate on Love) - but I felt it might be a thread killer.  In another, I wanted to add something but hadn't worked it through or had got into an internal contradiction. (I should note when this happens though.)

I haven't much time this morning - I should be marking, I'm packing to go to Aberdeen and I have to go for my train to go to work.  I'm writing hastily and all the time thinking about what this blog should "feel" like.  It's not really just a matter of transferring from Blogger - that's a different type of space.  It almost feels as though in it's in a different place (physical) in the web - which does suggest an intersubjective construction of the online world.

This sounds as though I'm going to want to keep two blogs going.  (But it'll be next week before I can do this.)