Tonight's post will be short.  Why?  Because the reading is just not that engaging.  I read Lindy McKeown's "Action Learning in a Virtual World," and I was not overly impressed.  Maybe the first issue is that I'm not overly involved in Action Learning, or maybe it's that I'm tired of authors making statements that they provide absolutely no evidence for..... not even anecdotal.  Perhaps it is because the statements they are making are not directly related to their topic, but why make the statements?

For example (and this will be a long one), McKeown comments that "embodied as an avatar in a virtual world, people get a sense of physical presence.  They feel like they are there in the virtual place as opposed to sitting at their computers at their current location.  When they meet the other avatars in their group, they get a sense of social presence.  They feel like the others are there with them.  There is enough willing suspension of disbelief to allow people to have a strong sense of being with the other people allowing them to interact as they would if they were in close physical proximity" (94).  The problem here is not that I'm arguing or disagreeing with these statements, but give me one shred of evidence that you have at least witnessed this.  I would believe you.  For instance, if I made some of these statements, I would back it up with the fact that one night in a class I taught in SL, I asked the students to discuss a topic in their groups via text chat.  This did not require the students to do anything other than begin a group chat.  Instead, they used their embodied avatars to seek out and move to their other group members so that all of the avies could be grouped together as they had their discussion.  I did not tell them to move, they did this because it is what we would naturally do in RL. 

So I am getting tired of reading, repeatedly, claims that I wholeheartedly agree with, but of which they provide to substantial proof.  If you are making the claims, it must be because you have either witnessed it or read about it.  Either way, show me the proof.  Nuff said!!!

Ok, so maybe the title is a "little" misleading, but let me explain before you judge me to harshly.  The title of tonight's reading is "Serious Fun and Serious Learning: The Challenge of Second Life" by Dr. Clare Atkins and Mark Caukill.  The chapter is a case study based on one undergraduates project to produce a learning activity for first year students in SL.

The chapter outlines the successes and failures that both the student and advisers experienced during this project.  The student chose to replicate or demonstrate Internet Protocol Addressing (IPv4).  All of this is very interesting and worth anyone's time to read.  But this is not where I want to focus.

The authors make some interesting remarks that I think are worth looking at a little closer.  The student had participated in a class that used SL prior to proposing his project, and Atkins and Caukill remark that he benefited "in terms of an increasing self-confidence and self-belief which had improved his relationships with other students and had made him uncharacteristically bold in suggesting the project in the first place" (80).  My initial remark to this statement was "hmmm, seems a bit far fetched" and I still stand by that.  Had they given me examples of how the student's behavior or relationships had changed from prior SL to post SL, then maybe it would seem more reasonable.

Later, the authors state that the student's "creativity showed with the design of his unconventional avatar which seemed to allow him to 'expand' himself in his first life" (82).  Again, however, there is no evidence to show how his first life expanded.  These are all issues that I am extremely interested in when it comes to using SL.  I likewise believe that students can benefit from learning in SL, but my research shows evidence of this through student writing both inworld and out.

A final comment that Atkins and Caukill make is that there was "an additional and unforeseen benefit to the student . . . [in] the improvement in his ability to socialize and communicate with a wide variety of people both in second and real life" (84).  They back this up with evidence of how he communicated with people interested in his project in both second and real life and his ability to articulate his project with enthusiasm and confidence.  The authors believe that "this contributed to his already growing self-esteem and manifested itself in real life as a much more positive attitude to all his study which was noticed and remarked upon by other staff and students" (84). 

I would have liked for the authors to provide more evidence from the case study to substantiate their observations.  Or at least more anecdotes as to how they could see the changes.  Are all students going to react to learning in this environment in this way?  Not hardly.  One thing we all need to remember is that every student is different and they all have unique learning needs. 

"Sim Creation and Management for Learning Environments" by Judith Molka-Danielsen and Linn-Cecilie Linneman provides basic information for getting your classes started in Second Life (SL).  While I think some of the information is sound advice, much of what I read tonight is already obsolete in many respects, and it is this that I wish to address here.

As I read Molka-Danielsen and Linneman's article, I kept saying to myself "well, that's kind of right, but not really" and herein is where to problem lies.  The authors recommend creating training video's and documentation to help make students' transition into this world smoother and easier, and this is something that I have on my to-do list for my own classes.  Reading this article, however, made me realize what a futile exercise it might really be.  The folks at Linden Labs, the force behind SL, are constantly changing things: it might be a new viewer this week that completely makes your videos obsolete, but there is no telling what it might be next week.

So here is the problem, or the question that I would put to anyone who decides they would like to use SL in their classes: how can we, as instructors, keep up with something that changes so frequently?  How much time can we really invest in creating the training material in the first place, much less keeping up with all of the changes that occur?  This is one of the cost we have to pay to be on the cutting edge of education, and it is one I am willing to pay.  But even I ask myself at times how long I'll be able to keep up with the ever changing world of technology and be effective in what I do?

Ok, so the title of this blog is a little vague to say the least, but there is a point to it.  My boss, being the great person she is, thinks of me when she sees or hears something about Second Life (SL), so she sent me a link to a blog post yesterday.  The author, Kelly Kessler from DePaul University, entitles her post “Where Does a Girl Have to Go to Find a Pool Table: Gender Performance, Leisure, and The L Word in Second Life.”  She seems to bemoan the fact that the "white, femme, and upwardly mobile" representation of lesbian life portrayed in The L Word is recreated in the virtual reality of Second Life.  Hmmmm, let me see here, people who are fans of The L Word see a promotional saying they can join a community of like minded lesbians in a virtual paradise, and Kessler somehow expects that the demographics will somehow change?  I don't think so.  But the fact that all Kessler found in the virtual L Word was a repeat of what one would find on the show is not really the point of this post.
 
But before I go further, let me set the record straight on a couple of things.  Kessler wrote her blog post back in 2008, or as my dad would say, "back in my day . . . ."  The point here is that with technology things change rapidly, and 2 years seems like eons ago.  Yes, there weren't a great deal of choices for the noob avatar, and it's likely that there still aren't any stock avatars that would do justice to a woman wanting to perform butchness.  But there are plenty of opportunities to become that butch in SL, and there are plenty of opportunities to shoot a game of pool.  You just have to know how to do a search in SL.  Another point worth mentioning here is that as far as I can tell, The L Word has pulled out of SL.  When I go to sho.com and search for The L Word in Second Life, I get nothing.  When I do a search in SL for The L Word I get one hit for The L Word South, but it is apparently a locked community, as it will not let me teleport there.  So I guess The L Word, like so many, went into SL expecting one thing and when that didn't happen, they pulled out. 

So let me get to my point (finally, you say).  I understand that SL is not the easiest place to go and immediately feel at home.  But guess what, I bet I couldn't go to China, or Japan, or some other totally foreign  culture and immediately know where to go, how to act, or find people to immediately start talking to me.  So why do people think they can create an avatar, log into SL, and feel right at home?  Kessler argue that "without scads of leisure time and mad computer literacy, one will have a hard time in 2nd Life. I for one spent a lot of time running into walls, through the ocean, into folks, etc. (and I have a PhD). I still have no idea how to do much or get anywhere interesting. One must have serious patience, time, and money and/or skills to obtain stuff . . ." ("Where Does a Girl"). 

Bottom line?  I'm tired of people expecting to go into SL and have everything, or anything for that matter, handed to them.  Sorry folks, but SL is just that. . . it's a second life.  If you want to have a meaningful experience then you are going to have to work for it just like you do in real life.  It's not a computer game that you can learn a few key strokes for and have a great time killing monsters, leveling up, or completing quest.  If you don't have time to observe the culture and find your way into it, then don't even bother signing up. 

Yea, yea.... I am continuing to read Learning and Teaching in the Virtual World of Second Life, edited by Judith Molka-Danielsen and Mats Deutschmann.  I should have known when I saw the title of tonight's chapter/article, "Assessing Student Performance" by David Richarson and Judith Molka-Danielsen, that I was not gonna "enjoy" it as I do most things I read about Second Life (SL).  In the words of Cindy Selfe from DMAC, "I'm just not good at it [assessment]."  To be perfectly honest, I don't think anyone is "good" at it.  I believe it is a necessary evil, and anyone who thinks they are good at it is probably someone I would not want to take a class under.

To be fair, I can see how assessment in SL would be a problem for some.  As Richardson and Molka-Danielsen describe it, there are two types of classes in SL: "place of study" and "object of study" (49).  If SL is being used as a place of study, then it is basically a substitute for a regular brick and mortar classroom and the fact that it is SL really has nothing to do with anything.  As an object of study, SL is a main component of the class.  The authors believe that when SL is used as an object of study, like in a composition classroom, then assessment is really nothing new.  I would agree with that.  I often use SL as an experience for students so that they have something to write about, or as a way for them to critique their own real lives.  In this case, assessment is based on the essays they write: nothing new.

So it is when SL is used as a place of study that things become a bit more difficult.  And this is primarily what Richardson and Molka-Danielsen discuss.  They look at ways to assess language classes in SL.  So, if you are considering moving your class into SL as a place of study, and particularly if it is a language class, I would highly recommend you read this article.  But as for me..... not much in it that I was really interested in (or, to put it proper, "in which I was interested"). 

I have been packing all day, but I at least had the forethought to do my reading this morning before I began putting boxes together and stuffing them.  However, I am officially exhausted, so hopefully this post will make sense.

I continued with Learning and Teaching in the Virtual World of Second Life, edited by Judith Molka-Danielsen and Mats Deutschmann and one thing that you might want to know is that all but one of these articles are written by international educators, teaching around the world.  Today, I read Mats Deutschmann and Dott.ssa Luisa Panichi's article entitled "Instructional Design, Teacher Practice and Learning Autonomy."  It surprised me a little that the article was about language learning, but much of what the authors discuss is relevant for any type of class.

Again, tonight's reading validates so much about what I already know about SL and education and things I have had hunches about for a while.  Deutschmann and Panichi argue that you, as a teacher, must "be prepared to change your own mind set as an educator--we think it is fair to say that the use of SL also challenged our own preconceived views of what a language class is all about" (28).  So once again, it is a balancing act between going in with a pedagogical purpose, and being willing to adjust things as the need arises. 

Another issue that arises is the need to allow for socializing in the first couple of class sessions.  The authors call this the "Online Socialisation stage, whereby participants familiarize themselves with each other and their learning environment.  It is also here that the social culture of the community starts being establishes" (31).  Not allowing for this was a major mistake I made in the first classes I taught in SL.  I still find that I have difficulty in allowing enough time for this type of interaction, and I truly believe it is necessary to help students become familiar with the SL environment and each other.

As a final comment, I want to leave you with the authors' words.  A sentiment that I have been arguing for three years now in individual conversations, at conferences, and in articles.  Deutschmann and Panichi believe "that the physical dimension of SL (i.e. that there is movement of a kind) actually brings SL tasks closer to tasks carried out in real classrooms thus restoring the physical and kinesthetic/holistic dimension to learning which is lost in other virtual learning platforms (i.e. in the more conventional video-conferencing tools" (34).  When people ask me "why SL for an online writing center and not skype", this is exactly why.  SL restores a sense of the physical and knesthetic learning dimension.

First, Woo-Hoo, today is my 30th post.... only, ummmmm, well, 230 to go? At least I am sticking with it.  Second, if at any time someone reads a post and goes, oh, she should really read......, then post a comment and tell me what I should really read.  All this deciding what to read on my own is too much decision making for me.  Now, on to the "official" post for tonight.

This is once again about Web 2.0 technologies and the teaching of writing: two things that I am the most interested in, but yes, I am getting tired of reading words like pedagogy and Web 2.0.  In tonight's reading, "The Digital Imperative: Making the Case for a 21st-Century Pedagogy" J. Elizabeth Clark discusses the need to move writing into the 21st-Century by teaching our students a digital rhetoric that "emphasizes the civic importance of education, the cultural and social imperative of 'the now,' and the 'cultural software' that engages students in the interactivity, collaboration, ownership, authority, and malleability of texts" (28).  Quite frankly, I couldn't agree with her more.  She also discusses several ways in which she does this in her own classes, including ePortfolios, digital storytelling, interactive gaming (Second Life), and blogs.  Many of these, I have either tried, or use.

But she says something else that really peaked my interest, as I was thinking about this today as I was riding home from DMAC.  She aruges that "the future of writing . . . informs our classrooms and forms a new, "digital" imperative, one that asks how we can reshape our pedagogy with new uses of the technologies that are changing our personal and professional lives" (28).  Focus here, if you will, on "reshape our pedagogy with new uses of the technologies."  Are we, myself included, not always saying that the pedagogy always comes first, and then we adapt technologies to fit our needs pedagogically?  I had epiphany riding home today.  That idea of pedagogy first, technology second, can't always work.  How do I know what technologies will fit a digital pedagogy unless I just start experimenting with using the technologies first? 

I think, perhaps, that these two things have to grow together.  Sometimes the pedagogy will lead the way, at other times the technology will, and at times, they will progress hand-in-hand.  When we thought (back in the 80s and 90s) of computers and composition, we were mainly thinking in terms of word processors and networking our students together.  Then, perhaps, the pedagogy could always come first.  But now, with the explosion of Web 2.0 applications, I believe we have to rethink our approaches to designing our classes around digital literacies.  Yes, if you use a piece of software in your class, and you find it does not fit a pedagogical need, then throw the damn thing out!!  Don't tie yourself to using something that does not serve a purpose.  But don't discount using technology because you cannot conceive of how it might fit into your current pedagogy.  Give it a test drive and see if you don't perhaps find that your pedagogy needs a bit of tweaking, and this is the very thing to do it.  All I'm asking is that we try to expand our pedagogies by expanding our playful side.  We may find that we really do need a makeover.

I had no idea when I began Eve Shapiro's book Gender Circuits that she would look at Second Life with regard to gender identity.  Anyone who knows me understands how thrilled I am about this sense Second Life is of particular interest to me. 

Shapiro begins "Information Technologies and Gendered Identity Work" by discussing a myriad of topics that have been written about the subject.  It's almost as if she is trying to legitimate the topic, or it could be that she just wants the audience to understand how prevalent this virtual world is in our real world.  I have been a citizen of this virtual environment for over three years now.  I have seen avatars of all shapes and sizes and never blinked an eye at how the real world people chose to represent themselves in this virtual space.  It took Shapiro to point out just how homogenous Second Life really is for me to even consider this.  She brings up some interesting questions as well, asking "Why was gender, racial and body size homogeneity, the outcome of allowing people to construct their own avatars?  Is this homogeneity intentional, purposefully or unconsciously produced by this virtual world's designers or participants?  Or is it a product of those who participate in Second Life?" (89).  (Note: While many choose to italicize Second Life, I do not unless I am discussing the software that must be downloaded to enter the virtual world.  If we do not italicize "world", I see no reason to italicize Second Life.)  Shapiro notes that most people likely just create their "ideal" self when they construct their avatar, but that in so doing "we created a world that reflected social body norms and hegemonically valued existing gender, race, and class scripts" (89).

If this isn't food for thought, I don't know what is.  But I do have a bit of a theory, and I'll pose it here.  While residents of SL are allowed to create their own avatar, the beginning choices are limited in what you can be.  When I researched first-year composition in this world in 2007, my students did not even have the initial choice of choosing African American.  And I had a student who wrote about the disembodied feeling they had walking around as white when in reality they were African American (my use of "they" is intentional to avoid gendering here).  Second Life does allow you to completely remake yourself once you are in-world, but that requires some knowledge and often Linden $$$ to create what you want, and many noobs (new residents) do not make these investments unless they decide to remain a citizen of this society.  So perhaps these citizens appear to reproduce homogeneity simple because they have not made the commitment to the money and time it takes to create the avatar they really want.  At any rate, it is a theory.

I want to take this one step further.  Shapiro notes that different theorists believe "that technology can produce new and reconstructed bodies and identities" (93).  There is ample evidence that this is true.  Perhaps the reason Second Life reproduces homogeneity is because it puts everyone on equal playing ground.  Wagner James Au, in The Making of Second Life and Robbie Cooper, in Alter Ego: Avatars and Their Creators, both discuss an avatar in Second Life known as Wilde Cunningham.  An avatar with nine real world individuals, who suffer from various physical challenges, behind it.  As these people say, Second Life allows them "to fly and walk and run and drive and basically experience everything life has to offer.  It allows us to fulfill some dreams and meet really cool people we would not otherwise have met" ("Wild Cunningham" from Robbie Cooper's Alter Ego: Avatars and Their Creators.  Homogeneity, for some, creates an identity that puts them on an even playing field and affords them things and experiences they would otherwise miss out on.

Obviously the first half of this chapter dealt with a lot more than just the creation of identity in Second Life, but I have written far too much for one blog post and likely bored my readers to tears, so I'll end with a goodnight.

Ok, so the section I read tonight was not totally about tattoos, but the case study at the end of the "Preview" chapter of Eve Shapiro's Gender Circuits was, and it is really what I found the most interesting about this section.

To be fair though, I should have read another page last night because Shapiro discusses the impact of challenging gender norms by discussing drag communities and how many begin to play with gender once they have been a part of that community of a while.  Interesting stuff, to be sure.  And Shapiro also talks about how technologies such as Second Life (yes she did discuss SL) allow people to bend gender rules and play with identity.

But the case study on tattooing is where I want to take this.  Again, brings it home for me in a big kind of way.  Shapiro does an excellent job of discussing, briefly, the history of tattooing.  But more interesting is the meaning or meanings behind tattoos and what they say about us.  Probably the most obvious thing is that tattoos have never been and still are not looked kindly upon for women.  Shapiro argues that "tattoos on men and women are interpreted in vastly different ways boosting masculinity while threatening femininity" (40).  This got me thinking about my own tattoos, those of my partner, and those of my niece.  If you look at my partner's tattoos, they pretty much tell a story on their own.  There is a pooh and tigger, which needs some explanation, and two Indian themed tattoos which pretty much stand on their own.  A fourth needs explanation.  People see it and do not understand what it means at all.  My niece's are probably what I would call the epitome of a woman's tattoos.  She sports a lady buy, maybe a butterfly, and one associated with her two girls.  These are the types of tattoos that I can see being appropriate gender scripts for a woman.  My two tattoos are unique.  They did not come from the wall of a tattoo parlor, and as such, if you don't ask, you won't know what they mean.  One of them matches my partners and thus the tattoo she has that needs explanation.  The other one people mistake all the time, but people rarely enter into a discussion with me about it. 

So what do my tattoos say about my gender?  I hope nothing.  They are very personal to me and not meant to scream femininity nor masculinity; they are meant to say something about my inner being.  While I am thoroughly enjoying Shapiro's text, I hate to think of all of this gender scripting and what it says about me.

It's late, I'm tired, I'm outta here.

I can't believe the first of May is already here.  This is the official day that I decided I would begin my project of reading at least 260 articles or book chapters in a years time.  This means that by April 30 of 2011, I should be at or beyond Project Post 260.  For me, this is exciting.  This is a journey for me: both a personal and a professional journey.  I am not doing this for anyone but myself.  However, joining into a conversation with others about things I've read, and hopefully what others suggest I read, will be an added benefit.

With that said, the article that I decided to start with today is Jennifer deWinter and Stephanie Vie's "Press Enter to 'Say': Using Second Life to Teach Critical Media Literacy."  Second Life is my area of study, so I thought this was perfect to begin with.  I'll start by simply saying that in the margin on the front page I wrote "Seems like most of this article is underlined!!  Sign of a good article for me!!!"  And it is.  I find if I am underlining and writing a lot in an article, then it is one that has engaged me.  In the abstract of this article, deWinter and Vie state that they will "argue that students need to develop critical awareness of their own subject formation and their position in new media environments" and they "further contend that composition instructors can look to Second Life . . . as a dynamic text to engage students in questions regarding power, ethics, intellectual property, and community" (313). 

I couldn't agree more with these statements.  As someone who has used Second Life to teach first year composition, I have witnessed students engaging in these types of dynamics.  An SL resident accused three of my students of harassing her, these same students battled with issues of power and control in this world, and others felt marginalized during assignments.  I believe using the tool of SL in composition classes can teach students critical skills they will need in life.

But there are some things that deWinter and Vie mention or say that I do not believe they discuss enough or I do not agree with.  The first thing is really very minor, but as an immersed resident of SL, I think it is important to point out.  They use the words "play" and "player" a few times in conjunction with SL.  I think perhaps they make this rhetorical move in order to connect with what James Paul Gee discusses about using video games in education.  I never consider myself a player or playing when I log into SL, and I discourage my students from using that language as well.  I want my students to treat this environment as another culture.  To that end, I often have them keep field notes about the things they witness.  If we expect students to treat the environment seriously, even at times of play within the world, I think it is important that they understand it as a different cultural experience.

The other thing that deWinter and Vie touch on briefly but I wish they would have delved into a little more is the risk involved in using SL.  The authors note that "instructors must be aware that racism, sexism, and other forms of harassment may be unavoidable; as such, instructors should approach these as teachable moments to help students understand the changes that online environments have wrought on our understandings of privacy and safety" (319).  This is all very true.  What I think they fail to point out is that this "environment" is no different than taking students into third world countries to perform research, or just down the street.  I think if SL is approached as research, and the possibilities discussed, taking students into SL should be not more of a legal issue than taking students to other cultures to learn.  Just as we cannot control our students' lives once they leave our brick and mortar classrooms, we cannot control what they do in SL outside of class.  That is life.  At least they can simply log off if they find themselves threatened in SL.  One cannot log out of real life situations.

deWinter and Vie's article has succeeded in validating my own ideas about using SL in the composition classroom.  So many things can be explored in this environment that simply cannot be in RL.  Want to queer something?  Take a walk into SL and queer away.  Want to challenge authority?  You can do it with little risk.  This was the perfect article for me to begin my journey of 260 days of learning.

The article can be found on ScienceDirect but requires a subscription through a library.