Classcraft

After surfing the Internet for different simulation games I came across a “suggested” post on Facebook: Classcraft. At first, I was a bit hesitant to try it out because it can be extremely daunting when you’re not literate on the platform. But, in due time I began clicking around and tried to make sense of the simulation game. As an educator, I’m not entirely sold on the game just yet- as it is extremely confusing to set up and figure out. I’m still learning and finding out new things months into “attempting” to use it. I think, if trained properly on the platform it could very well be an interesting addition to the classroom setting. The game allows you to embody an avatar that your teacher chooses for you- there are three options: healer, mage, and warrior. I have yet to truly understand the difference in these three roles but, I’m still learning. It truly frustrates me that I cannot comprehend the platform. I feel that if I were a gamer the platform would be more accessible and easier to be understood because most gaming platforms appear similar. If anyone else has used this platform please let me know, I want to love it because I think it could be a really interesting tool to gain student interest but, I’m still not entirely sold on it because it is so incredibly difficult to understand. 

https://game.classcraft.com/signup/tnoG4qgyGYXYW5xL4

Technology Interview

The questions I posed during my interview with these three students were:

1.     How is technology integrated into your everyday life?

2.     How long would you say you spend using social media/technology during the day? And then, during the week?

3.     Do you enjoy using technology in the classroom?

4.     What is your favorite technology or social media platform and, why?

5.     What technologies do you like that teachers use in the classroom?

6.     Would you include any new technologies or social media platforms into the classroom?

7.     Do you find technology to be distracting?

8.     Is technology a positive or negative addition to the classroom setting?

9.     Why do you use technology?

After having the opportunity to interview these three teenagers (one in 9^th grade and two in 10^th) about their technology and social media usage I was left with the following findings:

Of the three, two of the teens were males and one was a female.

All three students stated, they enjoyed technology but felt it to be more of a nuance when the teachers tried to incorporate it into the classroom. They felt this way because many times, the teachers were not adequately trained in the technology and were forced to learn on their own and at times the teens felt they were more well versed than the teacher was in that particular technology.

All three felt that the integration of technology into the classroom could be both a positive and negative. Each commented on the negative aspect first (which I found interesting) they felt as though many students were more distracted when teachers asked them to use their cell phones, ipads, or computers during class. They mentioned the positive side to technology usage was that not all students learn the same way and that by using technology it allowed those students who might have struggled to become successful within the classroom setting.

All the students said they spent on average, 4-6 hours on social media/technology/video games per day and, a whopping 30-43 hours a week. Surprisingly enough, I find this number to be slightly low and it might be because they are not including the time they are in school where technologies such as the projector, apple t.v. or mimio have become so commonplace.

After conducting this interview, I found that the amount of technology used on a daily basis may infact vary depending on the area in which the school district resides. Many students who live in rural or urban areas may not be able to afford internet access / the area in which they live might not allow them to gain internet access (wifi). It might be interesting to conduct this study with students across several grade levels and see how the results of technology integration would vary. I wonder if students at younger grades would say they enjoyed the integration of apps and games into the class because it makes the class more engaging. 

Annotated Bibliography: The construction of the self in a digitalized world

Topics of Interest: 

Self v. Digital Self
Constructing the self in a digital world
Reality v. Hyper Reality in relation to the digital world
Creating a false sense of the self
Virtual Reality and Public Sphere

These topics interest me the most because I would like to further understand the notion of ‘the self’ vs. ‘the digital self’. In what ways does this impact our student’s thoughts, interests, and lives as a whole? As educators, we are surrounded by students on a daily basis, in order to better understand the students and the lives that they live we must first understand who they are and the means by which they represent themselves both on and offline. Delving into this topic will hopefully deepen my understanding of the personas students create in order to embody someone they could only ever dream of being like. The hidden world of online personas is a topic few scholars have written about but, I believe pushing the research even further will help me better understand the underlying driving force behind the ‘why’.

Questions:

Why do people (students) represent themselves one way online and then another way in person?
How/what does our online persona tell us about who we are as individuals?
How does the way in which we represent ourselves online reciprocate the way we represent ourselves offline?

*My apologies, when I copied my citations over from Microsoft word the formatting got weird and has spaces in places that shouldn't have extra spaces! Thanks for understanding :) 

Annotated Bibliography

Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: the internet as a public sphere. New Media &           Society, 4, 9-27. doi: 10.1177/14614440222226244
This article discusses the internet as a public sphere and the information accessed on this platform is thought of as ‘public’ and by no means private. The author goes on to further explain anonymity online and how the absence of face-to-face communication allows for freedom of expression and allows users to omit information about themselves they do not feel truly “represents” who they are.

Robinson, L. (2007). The cyberself: the self-ing project goes online, symbolic interaction in the     digital age. New Media & Society, 9, 93-110. doi: 10.1177/1461444807072216
This article goes in depth with an explanation about the ‘looking-glass’ theory and its direct connection to ‘the self’. The author demonstrates a postmodernism approach to understanding the creation of the cyber ‘I,’ ‘me,’ and ‘other’. This article will help further my research because it will add an interesting perspective in relation to ‘the self’ vs. ‘the online self’. This will further my research because this understanding of the cyberself will allow me to explore the concept of the digital selfie and how the online self is a fabricated version of the offline self.

Schau, H. J., & Gilly, M. C. (2003). We Are What We Post? Self-Presentation in Personal Web Space. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 385-404.

This article raises the awareness of consumer identities and how computer-mediated environments (CMEs) have emerged through the creation of virtual worlds. This article will be useful in my research as I explore consumer identities and the affiliative relationships students foster with others and social groups. The creation of a consumer identity is the intention to want what we choose not to have and through the virtual CMEs one is able to create an identity that reflects who they are and who they believe themselves to be.

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Retrieved October 28, 2015, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm.
This article presents an explanation of the Connectivism theory and how technology impacts this theory. The learning theory is further broken down into three focuses: Objectivism, Pragmatism, and Interpretivism. This article will be useful in my research when looking at the ways in which technologies have begun to rewire and reshape the ways in which we think.

Zhao, S. (2005). The Digital Self: Through the Looking Glass of Telecopresent Others.           Symbolic Interaction, 28, 387-404.
This article looks at the impact telecopresence has on individuals and its direct connection to ‘the self’ along with the differences between the “digital self” and the disembodiment of ‘the self’ in the online world. The author explores the “looking glass” theory and the three stages teenagers go through in order to establish this notion of ‘the self’. This article will be particularly helpful in my research when further exploring adolescence and this particular stage in a teenager’s life and its direct connection to the representation of ‘the self’ vs. ‘the digital self’.

Here is a list of (potential) references that will be used for my research*

References

Ackermann, E. K. (2004). Constructing Knowledge and Transforming the World. Chapter             published in: A Learning Zone of one’s own: Sharing representations and flow in collaborative learning environments, 1, 15-37.

Belk, R. (2013). Extended Self in a Digital World. Chicago Journals: Journal of Consumer           Research, 40, 477-500.

Clark, E. J. (2010). The Digital Imperative: Making the Case for a 21^st- Century Pedagogy.             ScienceDirect: Computers and Composition, 27, 27-35.

Garcia-Montes, J.M., Caballero-Munoz, D. & Perez-Alvarez, M. (2006). Changes in the self      resulting from the use of mobile phones. Media, Culture & Society, 28, 67-82. doi: 10.1177/0163443706059287

Hull, G. A. (2003). At Last: Youth Culture and Digital Media: New Literacies for New Times. National Council of Teachers of English, 38, 229-233.

Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: the internet as a public sphere. New Media &           Society, 4, 9-27. doi: 10.1177/14614440222226244

Schau, H. J., & Gilly, M. C. (2003). We Are What We Post? Self-Presentation in Personal Web   Space. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 385-404.

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Retrieved October 28, 2015, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm.

Steuer, J. (1992). Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence. Journal of     Communication 4, 73-92.

Suler, J. (2002). Identity Management in Cyberspace. Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 4, 455-459.

Thomas, A. (2004). Digital Literacies of the Cybergirl. E-Learning, 1, 358-382.

Zhao, S. (2005). The Digital Self: Through the Looking Glass of Telecopresent Others.          Symbolic Interaction, 28, 387-404.