Introduction
This chapter will outline first, the terms of identity and avatar in the web 2.0 environment
while looking mainly at psychological, cyberspace and social aspects of such. Second, the
chapter will summarize what consequences and implementations the use of online
identities or avatars has for the overall online communication in web 2.0 and specifically
for the aspects of learning in online social media networks. Key questions or issues will be
discussed, as well as potential solutions. The chapter will end with a brief summary of the
discussion, followed by a list of references and
Identities and Avatars, differences and communalities
According to Altheide (2000), identity is a part of the self concept “by which we are known
to others” (p.2). We can have different identities depending on our social environment
whereas our personal identity in the end is that which makes us unique as a person.
Avatars, in contrast, according to Peterson (2005) are “online manifestations of self in a
virtual world” (p.30). From a learning standpoint we can differentiate between virtual
environments that use avatars as “windows to collaboration” and identities that stay
behind the avatar.
Mead already in 1934 pointed out, identity is in part socially constructed and therefore can
be seen as a form of a public process by which several environmental constraints affect the
construction. In the online world “real life” norms are inhibited which can create a new
mode of identity construction through anonymity and disembodiment with other
communicators (Bargh, McKenna, & Fitzsimons, 2002). In completely anonymous online
communities users often show their “true” selves (Bargh et al., 2002), the one they would
hide in non-anonymous offline environments. Especially for stigmatized groups this can be
an advantage (McKenna & Barg, 1998).On the other hand in non-anonymous online worlds
social constraints again shoot in whereas forthright comparison is lacking. As a
consequence, users express their “hoped for possible selves”, or wishful identities
(Yurchisin et al., (2005), rather than their “true” identities. The hoped for identities are
selves that an individual aspires to become, given the right circumstances (Higgins, 1987).
Research on non-anonymous online dating sites for example corroborated this
differentiation as users self-representation tended to be exaggerated in the way that they
tried to present themselves in the best light (Yurchisin et al 2005).
In sum (Zaho, Grasmuck and Martin, 2008) online self-presentations differ according to the
nature of the setting, that is anonymous (like chartrooms or bulletin boards) or nonanonymous platforms. Whereas in anonymous platforms users are more willing to pretend
to be someone else or even act out negative impulses (e.g. Turkle, 1995, Murray, 2000), in
non anonymous sites, the “hope for selves” guide the representation of ones identity. For
example, in Facebook, users mainly “let pictures speak” or let their group membership,
friend lists and wall posts represent themselves rather than autobiographical descriptions.
Their online identities are built implicitly, rather than explicitly (i.e. autobiographic
descriptions of oneself) (Zhao et al, 2008). Furthermore, Zhao and his colleagues (2008)
found that facebook user’s self-presentation was projected as being more socially
acceptable as their real self. Thus, it seems that the social aspects of web 2.0 play an
important role for identity construction and participation in especially non-anonymous
online platforms.
In web2.0 one can have different representations of one’s identity, depending on the
context1. While in an online class my identity may mainly be a name and an email address
(no visual features whatsoever, or autobiographical information), in social networks I can
be represented by even a picture of myself or comic figure or actor with additional
information about my interests, work and social networks (See figure 1 for an example).
Figure 1. Profile example of a social network site linkedIn
In contrast, Avatars are “computer generated visual representations of people or bots”
(Nowak & Rauh, 2005, p. 1), “designed to enhance interaction in a virtual space” (Peterson
(2005) p.30).
1
It is important to understand for this chapter than digital identities here are not refereeing to the actual persons IP
address or underlying digital “identity” references, but actual manifestations of an individual electronically.
Avatars can mainly be found on virtual environments such as Second life, simulation games
such as the SIM series, online forum systems, or in specialists uses (Falloon (2010). Behind
avatars stands the actual personal identity of the user but both not necessarily overlap.
Avatars can be in form of only heads (Figure 2) or a full embodiment of a person (Figure 3)
or can adopt a non human form (Figure 4). Depending on the environment users can select
from various offered templates (e.g. also like in wii) or create the avatar individually (hair
color, nose size, forehead small feet, big torso etc., see Figure 5). Also one can import a real
picture of oneself as an avatar which is possible in second life for example (see Figure 6).
Figure 2. Human avatars used in a study by Nowak and Rauh (2005).
Figure 3 Full body avatars in second life (Retrieved from: http://secondlife.com/)
Figure 4. Non human avatars used in a study by Nowak and Rauh (2005).
.
Figure 5. “mii editor” a software that enables creating your very own avatar for the wii
console.
Figure 6. import of web cam picture as an avatar in Second Life (retreived from:
http://secondlife.com/whatis/avatar/)
Nowak &Rauh (2005) point out that avatars not only are tools to help interacting in a
virtual environment, but also that with avatars, users can have a greater range of
experiences in the virtual environment than without them, which in turn has implications
for interpersonal relationships (Biocca & Nowak, 2002), as well as for the educational
context. Specifically, Nass, Steuer, Tauber & Reeder (1993) argue that avatars may
constitute a social cue which changes the user’s perception of the social environment,
leading to the ability to be more relatable to others. If avatars change the perception of the
self in the virtual environment and also the perception of others, then implications for
information processing follow (Nowak &Rauh, 2005). Avatars may change how people
perceive information in virtual environments which especially for a learning context can
have considerable implications.
Research shows that depending on the type of avatar, user’s person perception varies
(Nowak &Biocca, 2003). Just like we make judgments in real life of another person based
on their physical appearance, avatars likewise are used for this initial evaluation, whereas
the physical appearance of the avatar may also be attributed to the actual person behind
(Rauh, Polonsky, & Buck, 2004). Avatars can be tailored in their appearance which can
elicit a variety of impressions (Nowak & Rauh, 2005). For example, Nowak & Rauh (2005)
showed that human avatars are preferred before non-human avatars, a female nonandrogynous avatar was seen as most credible (meaning an avatar that was clearly
attributed of being a female), most homophilous (i.e. the extent to which one feels similar
to the avatar) and most likely to be chosen as a representative for one’s own persona. In
addition, in general avatars that were judged to be very attractive were also found to be
more credible and perceived similar to oneself (homophilous) and were more likely to be
selected to represent the person. Thus, similarly like in real life, attractiveness as a cue
guides the credibility of a person or in this case the avatar. Additionally, avatars were
selected to match according to the persons gender. These findings are in accordance with
several others research results that show that avatars in virtual environments are mainly
chosen in accordance with one’s own social gender reinforcing gender stereotypes rather
than equalizing them (Yee, 2008, Vander Valk, 2008). Usually users select avatars similar to
their offline identity while enhancing the positive attributes about themselves (Vander
Valk, 2008).Thus, an online environment with “the prominence of stereotypically
attractive attributes” (Vander Valk, 2008, p. 210) carries considerable implications for
learning.
Key Issues!–!What!are!the!key!questions!or!issues!facing!instructional!
designers/teachers/learners!using!these!kinds!of!tools?!!
Enhanced collaboration through identities and avatars
With regard to the use of avatars or identities it has been claimed that they can be very
useful to facilitate social interaction and connectedness in an online world especially for
people who have trouble in intersocial communication in the real world (e.g.Martino, 2007,
Katz & Aakhus, 2002). One element that comes with that is the fact of anonymity which
helps individuals to express themselves in ways they are unable to do in reality, which in
turn has some sort of therapeutic effect as it increases the users self confidence and social
connection (Martino, 2007). Whereas it has been discussed that online social networks my
facilitate a displacement effect (Nie & Hillygus, 2002) for real social networks, Woolgar
(2002) argued that web 2.0 can act as a support for certain social activities and
relationships, rather than a displacement. Interacting in an online community allows me to
communicate in a manner that I don’t have to fear any immediate consequences for my
input. Through local distance, I know I don’t have to fear any immediate real world
implications from my participation. Furthermore, I am able to control my self-presentation
and communication in a selective manner, as failing validation possibilities allow me to
present myself in ways that not necessarily represent the reality (Walther, 1996). That is, I
can present characteristics of myself that are not real, (e.g. having a female avatar that is
very demanding and diva like, although in reality I am a male, that is rather shy) or enhance
those characteristics I am especially proud of, and thus use the online world in a playful
way to try out different identities and behaviors without fearing any consequences. I can
present my “hoped for identity” which also will impact my way of communication in the
community, which in turn will impact in which way I adopt information. Also, role play and
showing a different self, with expressing different opinions compared to ones offline life
not only supports the quality of the “learning product” itself but also contributes to the
feeling of self efficacy of the individual behind. This becomes especially relevant for the shy
students who will find it easier to find a way to express themselves through their online
identities and contribute more to a discussion in an online environment than offline. It’s the
opportunity to step out of their offline identity and role as “the shy student” and explore a
new identity in this new online world.
Identities (as may used in blogs or social networks) as well as avatars (as used in VE) thus,
enable something that is unique to an online learning environment, that is, they make
community support possible and help to create social relationships (Bruckmann, 1998) in a
way people would not be able to in an offline learning environment.
Avatar based learning environments (such as Second Life for example) create a learning
support system that differs from offline educational environments and other non virtual
online learning communities, in the way that collaboration once more is enhanced through
other “avatars”, that is online students, respectively. As studies show, collaboration within
these virtual environments can enhance learner engagement which in turn supports
knowledge building and overall skill development (Antonacci & Modaress, 2005; Foreman,
1999). A study by Falloon (2010) showed that using avatars in a learning environment
assisted students (classes grade 7-8) communicating their understanding of the learning
subject manner in a way “ which they saw as less intimidating or embarrassing than
‘fronting up’ personally to an audience, and that this gave them confidence to get their
message across accurately and completely” (p. 115).
Thus, we can see that in terms of online learning environments avatars are basically the
door through which “learning” can take place. With avatars, the learner can actively
participate in the environment and communicate ideas so that knowledge building is
facilitated. Additionally, the way a user is presenting him/herself as an avatar has in turn
implications of how they are evaluated by others in the virtual world and in turn interact
with possible “collaboration” partners. Interestingly, when using avatars in an online
environment social constraints of how to interact with another are very much similar to
interactions in the offline world. Jeffrey & Mark (1998) found that avatars that got into each
other’s “comfort zone” in a VI (virtual environment) expressed verbal and nonverbal
discomfort in moving their avatar away. Behaviors that can be observed in the offline world
likewise.
AVATARS AND SOCIAL PRESENCE
Furthermore, avatars are the basis to create social interaction and the feeling of social
presence, which is a concept that describes “the presence of other people (in the form of
avatars) in a virtual learning environment (VLE) [which in turn] provides evidence that the
VLE actually exists” (Anetta, Klesath & Holmes, 2008, p.2). Research has shown that avatars
create a feeling of social presence and therefore contribute to a greater group commitment
(Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, and Archer, 2001), and better performance in individual as
well as group tasks, when a user experiences a positive self presence within the online
community (Richardson and Swan, 2003). A case study by Annetta and Holmes (2006)
demonstrated the effects of freedom of selection of avatars in a synchronous online science
education class has on student self perception, self presence and mood. Student in this
online class frequently changed their avatar in adoption to represent different roles they
went through in this class, depending on their task demand, and students in general
indicated to prefer a greater avatar selection within the virtual learning environment.
Anetta, Klesath and Holmes (2008) summarize these results stating that “providing
multiple avatar choices can help students establish themselves in the online community as
unique individuals” (p. 2 ¶5). Dickey (2002) stated: “[u]nique identities contribute greatly
to both trust and accountability, both of which are important in developing learning
communities” (p. 155). It is important to form a positive identification with ones online
community to build a platform of trust before knowledge sharing is enabled (Chiu, Hsu, and
Wang, 2006). In this respect, having the ability to trust a coherent other identity, either in
the form of an avatar or an online persona, that the user experiences as being present in
the environment actively engaging in activities, is crucial to build this trust and positive
feeling towards the online community.
Further research has shown that “the degree to which a person is perceived as “real” in
mediated communication” (Richardosn and Swan, 2003, p. 70), which is the degree of
social presence of a communication medium, has been found to be related to perceived
learning and satisfaction with the instructor (Richardosn and Swan, 2003). This may apply
to the representation of an identity through an avatar or through an online identity
representation, but it points out how important teacher interaction and the perceived
presence of classmates is for any successful online class. Avatars support the feeling of
presence in a virtual environment and thus increase not only the motivation to learn but
actually make learning fun (Bouras, Giannaka, & Tsiatsos, 2010).
Identity management and the effects for learning in web2.0
The way and ability of how users can represent their identity or online identity has serious
implications for their collaborative actions in the online community and consequently for
learning. As with the interactive ability of Web 2.0, identity management is not only about
how to present yourself as an identity or avatar, but also how to manage your impression
formation in an environment of computer mediated communication (CMC). That is, users
learn through the online social cues what the norms are in a particular environment and
represent themselves accordingly. Whereas in online communication some social cues for
communicative exchange as well as impression management are restricted, according to
the social identification/Deindividuation model (SIDE model, Spears & Lea, 1994), other
social heuristics and inferential processes become more relevant. The main argument of
the SIDE model (Spears & Lea, 1994) is that through the limited social cues available in
computer mediated communication (raning from anonymous online chat to synchronous
communication in a VLE) , the user is more inclined to rely on few remaining cues an
identity or avatar is providing. Thus, as stated above, users are likely to construct more
stereotyped and exaggerated impressions of their counterpart through cues like social
status, group membership, gender or certain use of language or communication styles (Lea
& Spears, 1991, 1992). Furthermore, social categorization processes also lead to a certain
impression formation of a possible communication and collaboration counterpart. That is,
in an environment with highly reduced social cues, such as anonymous chat rooms, forums
or in online classes (using blackboard as the main tool of interaction), the individual
identity becomes salient which means that the users points out the differences of the
others to him/herself and accentuates unique characteristics of their counterpart, such as
use of a certain language, or appearance, or group affiliations. Thus the user feels more
different to others which makes him/her rather withdraw from community participation
or collaboration in any sort, which however is a requirement for any knowledge building
within the framework of web 2.0. In contrast virtual environments and non-anonymous
platforms where more social cues are variable to judge from, group identity becomes more
likely salient, which means that users are likely to attribute other participants of that group
as more similar to themselves and more positive feelings to the partner or group develop.
Consequently, groups collaboration (and therewith the likelihood for collaborative
learning) is enhanced. In sum, according to SIDE, the limited cues from a computer
mediated communication environment lead to exaggerated positive or negative
impressions of the counterpart, depending on the social context and salience of identity
which has consequences for collaborative actions and finally learning.
Furthermore, Walther argues (1996) that due to the limited cues available for impression
management or forming ones identity, users engage in selective self-presentation. That is,
they selectively display characteristics they want to present and selectively hide cues, such
as actual physical appearance, they don’t want anybody to notice. This becomes especially
apparent for identity representations in non-anonymous online platforms, but also when it
comes to the creation of avatars on VE. Walther (1996) furthermore claims that due to the
lack of cues, cognitive resources can be allocated to other things such as message creation
or use of language as impression management. Consequently, computer mediated
communication is rather more intense than actual face to face communication because
resources are relocated to other aspects than back-channeling responses (Clark, 1996) or
nonverbal signal exchange. Thus, because more effort is put into the messages and also
there is more time to think about a message, the learning processes follow another path
than learning with face to face communication. Not only the learning process is different
but assessment of learning outcomes also changes with the reduced cues that can be
transmitted in online classes. Richardson and Swan (2003) point out that omitting racial or
sexual cues and identities in general enable a more fair ability assessment.
The consequences of physical appearance for collaboration in VE
Physical appearance or quickly accessible perceptive information about inline identities
are the cues users rely on when they make their judgment about a possible communicative
counterpart. In facebook as a non-anonymous environment, groups, friends, pictures and
network affiliations are an important factor for identity management so is physical
appearance in the use of avatars.
Whereas in anonymous online communities reduced social cues prevent gender or racial
discrimination and stereotyping, in virtual environments, avatars reflect stereotyped
gender traits rather than racial free identities (Vander Valk, 2008). Females and males
accentuate their gender in an articulated way therefore interaction patterns are likewise
impacted. For example, in a study by Lee and Hoadley (2007), students observed and
described their experiences in second life using avatars with different gender and general
different physical appearance (ugly, pretty etc). The students concluded that interaction
patterns were dependent on gender and physical perception, rather than their individual
merits and the “cooler” your avatar, the more respect you would get from others. It
becomes apparent that learning is affected by stereotyped social experiences like that. It is
important for educators to be aware of the fact that stereotypes are likely to be imported
into the virtual environment from real life (Kendall, 2002). After all, it seems that the
interaction patterns in a virtual environment are not that different from our real life social
experiences and there is nothing like a “neutral” stereotype free learning environment.
Besides these more negative implications educators have to be aware of, the apparent
importance of physical appearance can also be used in advantage for social interaction.
Nowak & Rauh (2005) showed that attractive avatars also were found to be more credible.
For the educational context in online communities or virtual realities it implies that avatars
need to be attractive in order to fulfill their role as an educational mentor and receive
credibility in what they try to teach. Additionally, this means if visual characteristics seem
to be the guiding principal in the perception of the online avatars, than designers should
provide users with several options to choose from. Even more, if user’s choose avatars in
accordance with their gender and according to several perceived characteristics similar to
their own, avatars can provide the user with a lot of valuable information about their
counterparts. Designers should take respect to that fact and should provide “rich” avatars
with as many visual characteristics as possible for the user to choose from. This can
enhance the social perception of the counterpart, credibility, as well as impact relatedness,
retention and perception processes, as Nowak and Rauh (2005) pointed out. As humans we
want to reduce uncertainty of the people we interact with. When we select avatars in the
way that they are very similar to ourselves than we also derive the best uncertainty
reducing cues when other avatars provide us with the same social cues we would expect
due to the way we would present ourselves. Thus, again, for the educational context, it is
important to be able to select an avatar that reflects the learners values and his physical
characteristics (Dieckey, 2000). Only then the user feels comfortable which can be seen as a
prerequisite for any educational collaboration.
“Experiencing” the learning objectives through avatars
Antonacci, Bartolo, Edwards, Fritch, McMullen, & Murch-Shafer (2008) pointed out that
educational virtual learning platforms can support role playing as well as actually working
with and physically touching the object of learning through an avatar, and thus “high levels
of cognitive functioning such as interpreting, analyzing, discovering, evaluating, acting and
problem solving” can be created (Antonacci et al, 2008, p.4). The avatar is thereby the
necessary tool through which the learner can actively engage in the online environment,
which has been shown to increase learning outcomes (e.g. Markwell, 2007).
Learning in web 2.0 through the use of avatars is facilitated because the environment
makes it possible to simulate, create, experiment and physically (through the avatar)
manipulate the object of interest. Thus, a more practical experience with the “learning
object” is created which in addition to collaborative group exchange of knowledge, can
yield in highly elaborated cognitive constructs. According to constructivist theories of
learning (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996) directly interacting (exploring from all sides,
“touching” it through the avatar, assessing its physical abilities) with the learning material
is essential for knowledge building. Besides simulation, virtual environments also provide
the perfect environment to build and design things (e.g. cloth, vehicles, houses,
newspapers), explore history, art, physics (e.g. weightlessness), earth science and more
(Antonacci et al., 2008). Instead of learning about romans art with a book in a traditional
classroom, virtual environments enable the student to actually walk through a museum or
the Duomo in Milan and thus get a first hand learning experience through actual
exploration.
In addition to learning about a particular subject matter through avatars in virtual
environment, avatars also foster the exploration of one’s own identity through role playing
and playful social interactions which in turn greatly affects experiential learning (Lee and
Hoadley, 2007). Lee and Hoadley (2007) tested this claim in a 5 week case study in which
they wanted to see what role avatars play in a virtual environment to enable students to
learn about their own identity, cultures, stereotypes and prejudices in a first hand
experiential context. Among other measures, the authors assessed pre –post measures of
students perceived learning about diversity, stereotyping and cultural issues as well as
motivation to learn in a massively Multiplayer Online game (MMOGs). They found
significant increase in all post test measures, concluding that “MMOGs promote learning by
motivating and engaging students through the direct leverage of identity enactment and
role play” (Lee & Hoadley, 2007, p. 5).
The authors also point out that learning from “traditional” learning games fail to have a
considerable impact because they don’t require the user to explore things from their own
identity. “[The} identity adoption process trains student to solve problems from the point
of view of the roles they are assuming, opening them up to new perspectives and
challenging them to think in new ways” (p. 5). Virtual (gaming) environments facilitate the
exploration of other possible selves that are competent in solving practical issues in the
learning context which shows the learner a bigger picture of the learning context instead of
just failing or passing an exam. This, in turn also keeps learners motivated, which is a very
important aspect for any successful learning.
Figure 7 Discussion group of the Knowledge Media Researc Center, University Tuebingen,
Germany, in second life (http://www.iwmkmrc.de/www/en/projekte/projekt.html?name=WissenskonstruktionvirtuelleOnlinewelte
n&dispname=WissenskonstruktionvirtuelleOnlinewelten )
Solutions!–!How!might!the!key!issues!be!addressed?!What!tools,!techniques,!
and!processes!might!we!use?!Describe!them.!Give!examples.!= It is important to let
students select their avatars to present their role within their learning community.
Instructors have to be aware of this fact when they think about implementing a class in a
virtual environment. Community members need these social cues to make inferences about
their communication partner, reduce uncertainty and thus build trust into the learning
relationship.
From a design principle standpoint in order to support online learning it is important to
create social presence, meaning easy ways for people to interact and to experience the
other users. In a virtual world this can be done by making tools available that enhance
communication (chat window, video calling, avatar gestures, see figure8 ) or in a document
focused web tools as used in online classes, enabling communication through discussion
boards, whiteboards or forums so that participants get an idea about the other “classmates”
and the instructor as well. Furthermore, in virtual worlds space is an important aspect as
your avatar is the window with which you see what is around you. Thus, creating objects
that the user can play with close by is important to engage the user in active exploration of
the environment. If nothing to explore is provided nothing will be explored (Bouras,
Giannaka, & Tsiatsos, 2010), and learned respectively. Also it is important to increase the
users representation and awareness about others and things that are going on in the
learning community. Whereas avatars can help to show each other representation of who is
active at the moment, in their visually they also share their activity in their activities and
nonverbal to others (e.g. saying hi and moving the hand in a greeting gesture, see figure 8).
Sharing objects (in form of uploading documents or links for others to see or using pictures,
video or audio as a tool of communication) enables the user to share their view and thus
part of their identity and on the other hand makes others aware of what is going on (see
table with “objects” in figure 8). Again, an avatar facilitates these principles of
representation and creating awareness through visualizing his/her actions.
Figure 8. Graphic used from Bouras, Giannaka, & Tsiatsos, 2010, p.32, showing the various
tools that enhance user representation and awareness about learning activities that are
going on in a collaborative virtual environment with the use of avatars.
Summary(–!a!chapter!summary,!listing!key!points,!recapping!considerations!
for!use,!etc.!
It seems that identity construction in Web 2.0 is not dependent in particular on the
individual itself, but rather on the social environment in which it is created. Thus online
identities can be different depending on the context. Whereas in anonymous environments
people may tend to present their “true selves’ because they are free from social constraints
but also may use that as a platform to show deviant behaviors, in non-anonymous
environments they may present their wished for self, while being able to “bypass physical
gating obstacles and are able to create the hoped for possible selves they are unable to
establish in the offline world” (Zhao et al, 2008, p. 1831). As Zhao et al (2008) point out
these digital selves also impact the identity and self concept of the user in the real world
and thus might impact social interactions in the real world.
Making use of an avatar in a virtual environment give the identity construction again
another level. Avatars in a virtual environment enable a tool of for actively learning,
interacting and collaborating, while fostering role playing and the exploration of one’s own
identity. Through the use of avatars, learning can makes more sense to the user, motivates
the student and yields practical knowledge acquisition.
References
Joey J. Lee and Christopher Hoadley’s presentation (2007)“Online identity as a leverage point
for learning in massively multiplayer online games (MMORPGs),” delivered at the 6th IEEE
International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT06).]
Annetta, L., M. Klesath, and S. Holmes.
2008. V-learning: How gaming and avatars are engaging online students. Innovate 4 (3).
Kendall, L. (2002). Hanging Out in the Virtual Pub: Masculin
University of California Press.
Richardson, J., and K. Swan. 2003. Examining social presence in online courses in
relation to students'
perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning 6 (1): 21-40.
Rourke, L., T. Anderson, D. R. Garrison, and W. Archer. 2001. Assessing social
presence in asynchronous
text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education 14 (2): 50-71.
Bruckman, A. (1998). Community Support for Constructionist Learning. Comput
Supported Cooperative Work 7:47-86.
Vander Valk, F. (2008). Identity, Power, and Representation in Virtual environments.
Journal of online learning and teaching 4(2), 205-211.
Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the
design and delivery of instruction. In D. Jonassen (Ed.) Handbook of research
for educational communications and technology. Macmillan: New York.
Annetta, L. A., and S. Holmes. 2006. Creating presence and community in a
synchronous virtual learning
environment using avatars. International Journal of Instructional Technology and
Distance Learning 3 (8).
http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Aug_06/article03.htm (Accessed September 20, 2007).
Dickey, M. D. 2000. 3d virtual worlds and learning: An analysis of the impact of
design affordances and
limitations of active worlds, blaxxum interactive, and onlive! Traveler; and a study of
the implementation of active worlds for formal and informal education. Columbus,
Ohio: Ohio State University. Dissertation retrieved from:
http://mchel.com/Papers/Dickey-Dissertation.pdf
Jeffrey, P. & Mark, G. (1998). Constructing social spaces in virtual environments: A
study of navigation and interaction. In Hook, K., Munro, A., Benyon, D.
(Eds.), Workshop on Personalized and Social Navigation in Information
Space. Stockholm: Swedish Insitute of Computer Science (SICS), 24-38.
Yee, N. (2008). Our Virtual Bodies, Ourselves? from "The Daedalus Project"
by Nick Yee. http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001613.php?page=1
Bouras, Ch., Giannaka, E., & Tsiatsos, Th. (2010).Exploiting virtual environments and
web2.0 immersive worlds to support collaborative e-learning communities. In N.
Karacapilidis (Ed.) Novel developments in web-based learning technologies:Tools
for modern teaching (pp. 20-45). IGI Global
References(–!listed!in!APA!format(
Altheide, D. L. (2000).Identity and the definition of the situation in a mass-mediated
context.Symbolic Interaction, 23(1), 1–27.
Antonacci, D., Di Bartolo, S., Edwards, N., Fritch, K., McMullen, B. &Murch-Shafer, R.
(2008).The power of virtual worlds in education: a second life primer and resource
for exploring thepotential of virtual worlds to impact teaching and learning. Report
from the ANGEL Learning Isle Steering Committee. Retrieved July, 3rd, 2011, from
http://www.angellearning.com/products/secondlife/downloads/The%20Power%
20of%20Virtual%20Worlds%20in%20Education_0708.pdf
Antonacci, D. &Modaress, N. (2005). Second life: the educational possibilities of a massively
multiplayer virtual world (MMVW). In the proceedings of EDUCASE, Southwest
Regional Conference. Austin, Texas.
Bargh, J., A, & McKenna, K., Y., A. (2004).The internet and social life.Annual Review of
Psychology, 55, 573-590. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141922
Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y. A., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2002). Can you see the real me?
Activation andexpression of the ‘‘true self” on the Internet.Journal of Social Issues,
58(1), 33–48.
Biocca, F., & Nowak, K. (2002).Plugging your body into the telecommunication system:
Mediated embodiment, media interfaces, and social virtual environments. In D.
Atkin& C. Lin (Eds.), Communication Technology and Society: Audience Adoption and
Uses (pp. 407-447). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Clark, H.H. (1996).Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Chiu, C-M., Hsu, M-H. and Wang, E. (2006) ‘Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual
communities: an integration of social capital and social cognitive theories’, Decision
Support
Systems, Vol. 42, pp.1872–1888. 2006
Ellis, K. (2010). Be who you want to be: The philosophy of Facebook and the construction of
identity. Screen Education, (58), 36-41.
Falloon, G. (2010). Using avatars and virtual environments in learning: What do they have
to
offer?.British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 108-122.
doi:10.1111/j.1467- 8535.2009.00991.x
Foreman, J. (1999).Avatar pedagogy.The Technology Source Archives. University of North
Carolina. Retrieved July 3rd, 2011, from
http://technologysource.org/article/avatar_pedagogy/
Gorry, G. (2010). Avatars in the Workplace.New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology & Society,
27, 126-129.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy theory.Psychological Review, 94, 1120–1134.
Katz, J. E. and M. A. Aakhus (2002). Perpetual contact: mobile communication, private talk,
public performance. Cambridge: University Press.
Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1991).Computer-mediated communication, deindividuation, and
group decision-making.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 283-301.
Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1992).Paralanguage and social perception in computer-mediated
communication.Journal of Organizational Computing, 2, 321-342.
Leary, M. R.; Tangney, J. P. (2003).Handbook of self and identity. New York: Guilford Press.
Martino, J. (2007). The avatar project: connected but not engaged—the paradox of
cyberspace.
Retrieved July, 3rd, 2011, from http://art.tafe.vu.edu.au/avatar/wpcontent/uploads/AvatarLitReview-revision%202.doc
Markwell, D. (2007). The challenge of student engagement. Keynote address at the Teaching
and
Learning Forum.University of Western Australia.
Nass, C., Steuer, J., Tauber, E., & Reeder, H. (1993, April 24-29). Anthropomorphism, Agency,
&Ethopoea: Computers as Social Actors. Paper presented at the InterChi '93.
Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Mead, G., H. (1934).Mind, Self, and Society.Ed. by Charles W. Morris.University of Chicago
Press.
Murray, B. (2000). A mirror on the self.Monitor on Psychology31(4): 16-19. Retrieved from:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr00/mirror.aspx
Nie, N. H. and D. S. Hillygus (2002). "The Impact of Internet Use on Sociability: Time-Diary
Findings." IT & Society 1(1), 1-20.
Nowak, K. L., &Biocca, F. (2003).The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users'
sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual
environments.Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12(5), 481-494.
Nowak, K. L., and Rauh, C. (2005).The influence of the avatar on online perceptions of
anthropomorphism, androgyny, credibility, homophily, and attraction.Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1), article 8. Retreived, July, 3rd, from
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue1/nowak.html
Parker, J. (2009).Academics' virtual identities.Teaching in Higher Education, 14(2), 221224.
doi:10.1080/13562510902757310
Peterson, M. (2005). Learning interaction in an avatar-based virtual environment: a
preliminary
study. Pacific Association for Computer Assisted Language LearningJournal, 1, 29–40.
Rauh, C., Polonsky, M., & Buck, R. (2004). Cooperation at first move: Trust, emotional
expressiveness and avatars in the prisoner's dilemma game. Poster presented at
ISRE
Conference of the International Society for the Research on Emotions. New York,
NY.
Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994).Panacea or panopticon?The hidden power incomputermediated
communication.Communication Research, 21, 427-459.
Turkle, S. (1996). Life On The Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. US: Simon &
Schuster
Turkle, S. (1995).Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon &
Schuster
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and
hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-44.
Woolgar, S. (2002).Virtual Society?Technology, Cyberbole, Reality. Oxford, US: Oxford
UniversityPress.
Yurchisin, J., Watchravesringkan, K., & McCabe, D. B. (2005).An exploration of identity recreation in thecontext of Internet dating.Social Behavior and Personality, 33(8), 735–
750
Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital
empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5),
1816- 1836. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.012
Glossary:
Identity
Knowledge building
Avatar originally Sanskrit word for the incarnation of god
homophilous (i.e. the extent to which one feels similar to the avatar
Androgynous – refers to the extent to which a persona is carrying female and masculine
characteristics. With reference to gender identity, androgynous people are not fitting
clearly into the societal constructed categories of male and female gender roles. High
androgyny individuals have both a high masculine and feminine traints.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgyny)