D R . B O B R I N K M A N

M I A M I U N I V E R S I T Y

C O M P. S C I E N C E

Using SL and Linden Lab as Case Studies to Problematize the Social

Impact of New Technologies

Key goal

General: Teach students to think critically about technology Specific: Predict impacts of new technology

Key challenges

Computers/web are normalGut/naïve reactions feel trustworthy

Result: Myth formation, critical thinking short-circuits

Key measures of success

Students should … …realize that gut reactions are often wrong …realize that myths tend to form around new technologies …be willing to critically analyze own assumptions about

technology

The “Ah-ha! Moment” – “I don’t know as much as I thought I did …”

Previous approach: Historical precedent

Question: Can “video games” be art (or literature)?Legal implication: Art often exempt from obscenity

laws.

Student opinion: Games are just games … I wouldn’t go to a museum to see a game!

Historical precedent approach

Works okay, but… …studying SL seems to work better.

My approach: Study Second Life

Students… …try SL …exposed to common perceptions/myths of SL …with help of instructor

Deconstruct myths Foster cognitive dissonance Problematize unacknowledged contexts

…transfer analytical skills to another tech or context

Main contribution

Not new: Using cognitive dissonance to encourage critical thinking

New in this talk: Using SL gets to the “A-ha! moment” very quickly Using SL works for a larger percentage of the class

Talk/Paper contents

Talk: High level view Terms Why SL? Transfer Example discussion The pedagogical patterns

Paper Formal pedagogical patterns Many more example topics

Myth

In my usage Do NOT care about truth/falsity DO care about quality of arguments for/against

Many common myths about technology are assumed to be self-evident

Def: Widely held belief that is unproven

Cognitive dissonance

Def: Person holds two conflicting beliefsUse: Motivates critical thought (if properly

managed!)

Application: Student reactions to SL – 1st belief Contrary information introduced by instructor (or peer) – 2nd

belief Rejection rare: Low stakes due to SL context

Problematize

Def: Challenge belief if dependant on unacknowledged context

Use: Challenge student feelings of comfort with technology

Example: My friends know I am a responsible person, so posting drunken party pictures on Facebook won’t negatively impact me Key error: Context assumes only friends will see it

Why SL?

Tech analyzed must be… …mostly unfamiliar to students. …well understood by instructor. …relatively immature (as a technology).

Learning to address cognitive dissonance… …is easier when stakes are lower …can be transferred to other contexts later

Transfer

Critical thinking skills learned in SL must be pulled up/across to other contexts Else, no useful learning

Context: My class

Title: Social and Ethical Implications of TechnologyAudience: Sophomores/Juniors of any majorViewpoint: Technology inherent in the definitions of

“human” and “social”Relevant course objective:

The student should be able to analyze and predict the effects of a new technology on jobs, class structures, globalization, or other social concerns.

At first sight…

At first sight…

At first sight…

At first sight…

At first sight…

At first sight…

Pattern 1: Blog-drama == common (mis)conceptions

Problem: Need a topicAudience: Instructor or advanced studentSolution:

Track discussions relevant to your field in blogs, forums Look for drama

Example proposition: In Second Life you can be whatever you want.

Pattern 2: Reflective writing

Widely used, enough saidExample: Critique or defend the proposition.

Pattern 3: S(L)afe cognitive dissonance

Problem: Students must learn constructive ways to cope with dissonance. Denial is common with familiar technology topics.

Solution: Induce dissonance with a topic that is… …likely to be poorly understood …unlikely to have high emotional investment

Step 1: Introduce a proposition, get student predictions

Student predictions: In Second Life, you can be whatever you want. Choose your own: Race, gender, level of attractiveness, height, weight Designer clothes, fancy house Character’s personality, back story, etc

Step 2: Introduce dissonant beliefs

Have best “clothes”Look any ageJudged purely on ideasBe attractive (female)It is not realMeetings in jammies

Daryth’s dragonsKid avie controversyAvie birth-date mattersHit on all the timePeople really get upsetHow should avie

look/act?

Unacknowledged context: Assumes that there is no social pressure or external control in SL

Step 3: Critical writing

Thesis-driven paper, usually with researchExample topics:

What was the origin of anti-weapon and/or anti-particle policies in SL? What does this tell us about how new technologies create new cultural norms?

Should crimes motivated by hate of an SL characteristic be deemed “hate crimes?”

What types of avatars should be banned, and why? Interview 5 long-time residents. How do they use their avatar

to communicate their (self-)identity to others?

Pattern 4: Back to RL

Problem: Students do not always realize a skill learned in one context (SL) applies in other contexts (other techs, and non-tech life)

Solution: Instructor (or peer) constructs parallel/linked question about RL

Example: Moving dissonance into RL

How does email style affect your perceptions of the sender? Collect 20 emails Annotate with your assumptions about the sender Write thesis-driven analysis

Most people act differently around “real friends” than they do around “co-workers.” Facebook presents the same profile to everyone you friend. Is extensive use of Facebook compatible with

professionalism?

Outcomes assessment

Problematizing student perceptions was even easier than expected – Plenty of room for misperceptions/assumptions about SL

Course assessment (not unit assessment): 83% indicated improvement in ability to think critically about impacts of technology

Unit assessment: Almost unanimous agreement by students that they experienced cognitive dissonance (or “were surprised”)

Other lessons learned

Video gaming experience “uncorrelated” with student success

Humanities coursework “correlated” with student success

Explicitly demonstrating transfer to another context is crucial

No surprise: Need multiple SL-related activities … otherwise, time to learn SL is too high

Final thought

From naïve gut reaction to transfer of learning in four class periods (~1.5 weeks)