Who are you online? Future research in Web 2.0 and gaming circle back to identity. | Base Group Summary | Discussion

Question 1

The ideas that we found most persuasive for future research in Web 2.0 mostly centered around identity formation, creativity, digital and multimodal literacies.

In particular, identity formation through Web 2.0 was hailed as valuable by almost everyone. People seem convinced that in out-of-school contexts, students were already forming identities such as writers, scientists, artists, etc, through avenues like fan-fiction and role-plays. In terms of promoting opportunities of equity for various identities, cloud computing was hailed as an example. Finally, the importance of expression and identity formation due to Web 2.0, especially for vulnerable populations such the LGBTQ community, was discussed.

People seemed concerned particularly about the gaps that exist between in-school and out-of-school contexts. This was especially true for online identities to translate to academic settings. A couple of people called for more research to be conducted so that the present status of identity transfer can be understood, worked upon, and facilitated more easily. Also, while social scholarship was hailed important, people were skeptical about researchers embracing Web 2.0 to express and expand their academic circles, especially as it was pointed out that not all technology users may wish to be producers. Some may want to be consumers and both groups of people may equally benefit from technology. Finally, people were concerned about certain research directions, such as the development of new Web 2.0 environments, fearing that this would only widen the already existing gap between in- and out-of-school contexts.

Question 2

Using Salomon and Perkin’s framework describing the effects ”with,” “of,” and “through” technology, we discussed how gaming might make us “smarter.”

We agreed that the effects with technology were related to how technology enabled higher-level cognition; games can be a vehicle for this through the range of experiences accessible in complex simulations. We also agreed that the effects of technology related to the impacts of gaming that extended beyond gameplay. The idea of knowledge transfer and whether or not gaming leads to transferable learning was debated. In particular, a call for more specific evidence and proof of transfer was a common theme.

The most discussed part of Salomon and Perkin’s framework was our unpacking of how the effects through technology might be seen in video games. We acknowledged that effects through technology require substantial change: a transformation or reshaping. Some of us looked externally, addressing how video games have changed the daily lives of youth and
arguing that the ubiquity of gaming and the evolution of basic games into sophisticated academic tools may constitute a transformation. Others looked internally, considering changes to students’ problem solving, motivation, and collaboration approaches to be representative of effects through technology. Questioning of these choices and whether any are tantamount to a significant reshaping of society or way of thinking predominated our discussion.

Overall, we accept that gaming makes us smarter because of the effects with technology; however, the need for further research leaves our consensus on the effects of and through technology less clear.

Discussion Questions

Based on Discussion Question 1
**We are recommending small base group discussion of this groups prior to full class discussion because of the need to closely examine the chart**
Look back at the table from Crook’s article (2012) that compares characteristics of communication in out-of-school and in-school contexts (p. 78). In many ways this chart summarizes the “gap” between formal and informal spaces we pointed to in our first discussion thread. Do you agree with Crook’s characterizations for in-school and out-of-school environments? Are there any points between the in-school and out-of-school columns that you think could or should be bridged? Are there any points that could or should not be bridged? How and why?

Based on Discussion Question 2
Most of us were still debating whether or not effects through technology could be seen in gaming. What circumstances/findings/evidence/examples would convince you that gaming does support effects through technology?

Based on an Intersection of Both Discussion Questions
Do you believe that there is a connection between video games and identity development? If so, does this identity development have the potential to transfer from digital spaces and lead to deep learning in academic settings?