The Expression of Personality in Virtual Worlds

Personality is an interesting thing. It can be experienced face to face, indirectly through the artifacts one leaves in personal spaces, even technologically across facebook and personal websites. The question follows then: how do our interactions in virtual worlds express our personality?

My last post spoke of the susceptibility of children to false memories created through their interactions with virtual worlds. The question that lingers is that of the real vs the virtual - what is real? If a person behaves one way during physical interactions and another in virtual interactions is one more 'real' than the other? Or are both just a function of the same personality expressing itself?

Yee et al (cited below) found that we express our personality in both behavioural and linguistic forms in virtual worlds. Yet they admit that their findings do not agree with previous studies on the issue.

They explored what the termed as the 'Big Five' personality factors: Emotional Stability, Extroversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Their findings suggest that how we behave in virtual worlds remains consistent over time - not in comparison to the physical world necessarily, however. On the contrary, the language we use tends to change more often. The authors of the study suggest that is because of situational interference in the measures they used. When an individual can, "Teleport from a poetry reading to a disco party" it is expected that one's language would change to reflect the different situations.

They continue to argue that is is the measure itself that failed as internet language is vastly different in nature from spoken or more formal written forms.

So what does this all mean? The important take away from this piece seems to be that how we behave in the virtual world is consistent over time. This suggests that rather than just putting on a new face we are exploring facets of our true selves. Our Avatars are not completely cut off from our physical mental states.

This would suggest that while some can changes Avatars as they would clothes, most of us are more personally invested in our online selves. What this study fails to tell us is just how these moments in virtual space correspond to our physical selves. Can predictions of personality based on online observances be used to predict behaviour in physical situations?

I remember the philosophy of dualism. The mind and body are thought to be separate but connected entities. Do our forays into virtual worlds extend this to a third self? Are we all made up of a mind, body, and Avatar?

Yee, N., Harris, H., Jabon, M., & Bailenson, J. N. (2010). The Expression of personality in virtual worlds. VHIL: Virtual Human Interaction Lab, Retrieved from vhil.stanford.edu

Virtually True: Children's acquisition of false memories in virtual reality

I recently had the opportunity to read a journal article by the title above.  What caught me on first glance was how pertinent it was to my teaching subject matter: media literacy.  Our students these days are more and more often presented with images of children in new and exciting situations.  When added to the repetitive nature of advertising and the ubiquitous media experience of today's child, I was very interested in seeing what the study had found.

The study begins by suggesting a simple way to categorize how media-rich a medium is.  Each medium can be broken down into four subsets - Feedback, Multiple Cues, Language Variety, and Personal Focus.  A virtual world scores highly as it can provide immediate feedback to the user; allows for cues both of a visual and auditory nature - and in more advanced units even touch and taste; includes spoken, written, and body language in as many different languages as the user can comprehend; and, with the right avatar, it can be a highly personal experience as a child can watch him- or herself carrying out an action.

What quickly caught my attention was the line, "The representation of the self can be a powerful factor in eliciting false memories in preschool and elementary children."  The study continues to find that while very young children are already highly susceptible to false memories, school-aged children are more prone to false memories that come from a virtual experience.

Many of my students are participants in numerous virtual worlds.  While not as personal and inclusive as the method used in this study, I have to wonder how children handle participating in both real and virtual worlds on a daily basis.  It is hard enough to teach children the difference between fantasy and reality at a young age - what happens if they remember doing things that they later find out are impossible in real life?

Yet the more important question is really this: If I remember swimming with sharks in a virtual world, is that a false memory? Did I have the experience or not?  While the authors of the study would point out that it is a false memory because I have never physically been in that situation, I have to wonder.  Is a virtual friendship less real than a physical one? Does there need to be a difference between the real and the virtual, or is it all just a part of the larger experience?

Segovia, K. Y., & Bailenson, J. N. (2009). Virtually true: Children's acquisition of false memories in virtual reality. Media Psychology, 12, 371 - 393.

When Data Rules, Students Are Left Behind

We all know the arguments against using standardized tests.  We are aware that offering incentives based on sales figures or other hard data cause the best of people to blur the lines in order to improve their results.

In the United States there is a big to do currently around using student performance to decide the value of a teacher.  While I do not agree that a teacher who has more experience in the classroom is necessarily a better educator, I cannot believe that we actually feel, if a one's job is on the line, that educators would not do whatever they can to make the data look favorable. 

In #edchat lately there was a discussion on alternatives to grading in the classroom.  A number of interesting posts came to the fore, but for those of us in K-8 education, the options are limited.  Report cards will be coming out soon, and not having grades is not an option.

In our classrooms we talk about differentiation using technology and other resources.  We talk about assessment for learning, instead of assessment of learning.  Our case management meetings, staff meetings, network meetings, family of school meetings - they all focus on helping our students achieve using whatever means are at our disposal.  How can be help each student learn in his or her own way?

My school district is enlightened.  We tackle issues in a genuine and in-depth way.  Yet we still rely on standardized tests to provide data.  Standardized tests for non-standard students.

I have long since come to terms with this oddity.  But what has floored me in recent days is our melding of the standardized testing of reading with the concept that every student learns differently.

We use the Developmental Reading Assessment.  As a student teacher I was placed in a pilot school when the test first came to our district.  Since that time I have been pioneering the test in schools from one side of the region to the other.  It is based on psychometric principles and does a good job of letting one know both how well a student can read, and how well he or she can comprehend what has been read.

Is it perfect? Heck no.  Does it work? Yes.

What is killing me right now are our new rules regarding students with identified special education needs.  The reading passage can be read to the students by a computer.  Yes.  This supposed test of reading ability can be transmitted orally to the student.  What is more, students are allowed to read passages many years below their grade level and have those results melded with their actual grade level text to demonstrate that they read "at level".

When we submit our data to the Board, it can include numerous instances where students marks have no representation of their actual ability to read.  Huh?!

We are so caught up in a data-driven culture that we are beginning to collect data that makes no sense.  It is time for the pendulum to swing back.

Blended Learning and the role of the teacher

Blended Learning is a powerful pedagogy. It is more than just the incorporation of technology in order to carry out traditional learning tasks in non-traditional ways. In order to be effective, it must intrinsically motivate students to achieve learning goals collaboratively. If this is carried out, it can lead to an increase in test scores and grades, improve student's writing ability, create more and more positive opportunities for co-operation and improve student - student and student - teacher discussions related to the curriculum. Most importantly, a classroom in which blending is being carried out effectively reports vastly different set of roles for the teacher and the learner.

As students begin to take more and more control over their own learning, deciding themselves what it is they wish to learn, the role of the teacher is forever altered. No longer does he or she take centre stage and disseminate the information in a set schedule according to his or her aims. The teacher must willingly give up control of what is taught and when it is taught. Students will begin to seek out the information they require, when they require it. This "just-in-time" learning model (Bolton, 1999) redefines the relationship between teacher and student by allowing the teacher to step back from the instruction and instead work to guide his or her students to the correct learning.

Teachers, educators, no longer need to focus on teaching specific information, but on the teaching of skills and processes.  It is no longer important to be the centre of attention, disseminating information.  It is instead necessary to step into the background, give up control, and allow students to lead the path to their own learning.

On Life-Long Learning

In the early 1700s, Yamamoto Tsunetomo stated (as recorded in the Hagakure):

In one's life, there are levels in the pursuit of study.  In the lowest level, a person studies but nothing comes of it, and he feels that both he and others are unskillful.  At this point he is worthless.  In the middle level he is still useless but is aware of his own insufficiencies and can also see the insufficiencies of others.  In a higher level he has pride concerning his own ability, rejoices in praise from others and laments lack of ability in his fellows.  This man has worth.  In the highest level a man has the look of knowing nothing.

These are the levels in general.  But there is one transcending level, and this is the most excellent of all.  This person is aware of the endlessness of entering deeply into a certain Way and never thinks of himself as having finished.  He truly knows his own insufficiencies and never in his whole life thinks that he has succeeded.  He has no thoughts of pride but with self-abasement knows the Way to the end.  It is said that Master Yagyu once remarked, "I do not know the way to defeat others, but the way to defeat myself."

Throughout your life advance daily, becoming more skillful than yesterday, more skillful than today.  This is never-ending.

As long as we are open to to new opportunities there is no end to the possible value we can add to our practice.  I had a conversation with my biggest critic the other day.  Where I use technology, she shies away, preferring the tried and tested traditional forms.  Without realizing what she is doing she argues the well-worn paths of equity issues, and support concerns.  She identifies the myriad of problems can occur when incorporating technology into the classroom.

A fabulous teacher who constantly seeks self-improvement, she consistently ignores the possibilities technology can offer her program.  Through her I learn patience.  I learn not to dive in with both feet at the slightest opportunity.  Through me she advances, baby-step by baby-step.

With an open mind all things are possible. 

The life of a Digital Refugee

Marc Prensky will go down in history for coining the concept of the digital native and digital immigrant in 2001. The terms, well known in educational circles have always left me wondering. It is clear that between the great divide of immigrant and native there must be others, those who do not fit into these two extreme camps.

Researching a paper I recently came across Cheri Toledo's further musing on the concept in which she further identifies key players in the digital age: the Digital Recluse, Digital Refugee, Digital Explorer, Digital Innovator, Digital Addict, and Digital Tourist.

A Digital Recluse is one who uses technology because he or she has to. Computers are an accepted evil in the work world and are banned in the home. Similarly, a Digital Refugee is one who is forced to utilize technology. One to whom a hard copy is a thing of beauty, as all electronic copies are but fleeting versions of the truth. The Digital Explorer can be seen up late on twitter, facebook or other social media sites, looking for new horizons to conquer and new ways to incorporate technology into the landscape. Digital Innovators adapt and change old tools to suit new tasks. While the Digital Addict is relient on technology and will actually go through a withdrawal phase when it is removed. Finally, the Digital Tourist embraces the language and tools of the digital age only while in contact with it. They resist the application of technology to their personal and professional lives.

What caught me initially was the fact that these definitions still fail to describe me. What I initially saw as a series of different identities, I quickly came to recognize as many similar facets of the same person. What is the true difference between a Recluse, a Refugee and a Tourist? Is an addict a true sub-category, or a set of traits that can be applied to any native?

I feel a new definition is required, and try as I might I cannot escape the use of the term Refugee to describe my place in the digital age.

By definition a refugee has no place to call home. Feeling persecuted in their birth place they seek shelter in a new land. This nicely defines my position in the technological world. I am not a native. I can readily identify vast differences in the way they think in comparison to my own perceptions. While I understand much of the language, there are nuances that I can never hope to recognize. New patterns evolve daily and I am forced to try to keep up to keep my footing in an alien world.

Yet I am no digital immigrant. A computer is no closed book to me. I willingly use technology to meet all of my goals, and do recognize its potential. I utilize it in my professional and personal life to attain ends impossible to describe. Sitting down in front of a computer is not a fear-invoking experience. It evokes no emotional response whatsoever. My computers are a part of my life, and thus they cut me off from the world of the Digital Immigrant. I am no Babes in Toyland - and yes, I fully understand that reference.

It is time for a new meaning to be attached to the term Digital Refugee. I am reclaiming the label for all who are a kin to myself. Those who feel adrift in a digital ocean, looking for a port to call home.

Will you join me?