Group Project

Student Interactions in Face-to-Face VS Second Life Role-play Activities

Abstract

As a 3D virtual online environment, the educational potential of Second Life has rarely been tapped. This exploratory study compared student interactions in role play activities in both face-to-face environment and Second Life. It was found that student had more interactions in Second Life, and the interactions in Second Life were less focused and more informal. We provided possible explanation of the differences, and discussed the educational implication for this study.

Introduction

Role play is an activity in which students assume the role of another person and improvise behaviors or consider a problem in a particular, pre-defined situation. Students are usually asked in a role play to make a decision, resolve conflict, or act out the conclusion to an unfinished story. While role play is artificial, it actually helps to stimulate reality in the classroom, and is regarded as a recognized teaching practice to encourage active experiential learning (Ments, 1989; Ladousse, 1987).

With the development of online education, online role play is becoming increasingly popular (Bell, 2001a; 2001b; Freeman & Capper, 1999). Studies in text-based online role playing activities suggest that online role play may be an effective method for developing understanding and exploring complex (Freeman & Capper, 1999; Bell, 2001b). In particular, it is found that interaction in online role-play is enhanced through anonymity (Collines and Berge, 1995; Connolly, et al., 1990; Freeman & Capper, 1999; Hartman, et al., 1995). This finding resonates with the research in online discussion, where researchers claimed that anonymity in online discussion actually enhanced the student interactions, because it gave students the confidence to ask question, and more freedom to express their own opinions (Freeman & Barnford, 2004; Sullivan, 2002). This is especially true for students who described themselves as shy or introverted (Bullen, M., 1998). It is unknown, however, whether there were other factors that also contributed to the higher level of interactions.

In addition, most of the studies examined online role play in the text-only online environment. Very few research studied role play in 3-D online environments. Dickey (2003, 2005) explored the role play in a 3-D environment called Active Worlds. It was found that role play in Active Worlds afforded opportunities for experiential learning and situated learning within a collaboration learning environment. But his studies did not explore how students in 3-D online environments may interact differently in the role play as compared to in the face-to-face environment. It is important for educators to be aware of the different nature of interactions in the two environments and what brings the differences. This will help them get a better sense of which form of activity can benefit the learners more under a particular circumstance.

The purpose of this study, therefore, is to describe how students interact in a 3-D online environment and in face-to-face environment, and to explain the why students interact this way. The 3-D environment chosen in this study is Second Life. Second Life is an online virtual world where players can represent themselves as avatars, and interact with each other through various tools that allow them to make gestures, have text-based conversations and so on. Advanced players can also construct objects or create their virtual businesses. As related research literature already recognizes anonymity as one of the factors that contribute to the differences of interactions in the two environments, we are more interested in discovering other factors. Therefore, we intentionally made the role play in Second Life non-anonymous. Our research questions are:

Ÿ In the non-anonymous role playing activities, what are the differences in students' interactions in face-to-face environment and Second Life environment?

Ÿ What are the factors that may contribute to these differences?

Ÿ Do student personality types affect their performance in the two environments? If so, how?

Method

The research design for this study is a qualitative exploratory case study focusing on the differences of in student experiences in role-play activities in the face-to-face environment and Second Life.

Participants

Four undergraduate female students in a TE course volunteered to participate in the study. They were asked to participate in two similar role-play activities, one in the face-to-face environment and the other in Second Life. None of them have much experience with Second Life before. Before the study, the Myers-Briggs Typology Assessment was administered to determine whether each student is introvert or extrovert. Two of the females were identified as being extroverted, and two of the females were identified as being introverted. The researchers did not know, however, during the activities, which females had been identified as such.

Tasks

The four participants of our study were asked to do two role plays, one in face-to-face environment and the other in Second life. All the other students in the classroom were also asked to perform one role play within their own groups. All the role plays had similar scenarios.

Each role play was about a motivational “syndromes” which impact learning. The reason for choosing these topics was they were in line with the curriculum scope and sequence of the course. All activities had a “script,” in which possible dialogue was suggested to the participants in the face-to-face and the Second Life role plays. It was recommended that they try to adhere to the script as much as possible, to attempt to be convincing in their portrayal of the motivational syndrome. No time limit was placed on either activity by the researcher. All participants were allowed to take creative license in their choice of methods to achieve the desired result in both the face-to-face and Second Life role playing activities.

The same four students participated in the face-to-face role playing activity and the Second Life activity. All students assumed similar roles (student, teacher, peer, narrator) in both activities, with the exception of the elimination of the narrator role in Second Life. In Second Life, the participant who played the narrator in the face-to-face activity assumed the role of another peer. After some discussion, it was determined that the narrator’s presence was not essential to the performance in Second Life, and because of the text-based communication, would have been difficult to identify as such. The effects of the elimination of the narrator were discussed in details in the results section. Both activities were observed and evaluated by other class members to determine the type of motivational syndrome being portrayed by the group.

Data Collection

The researchers observed both activities, and took notes on the students' performances. When they finished both of the role-play activities, the four participants were interviewed as a focus group on their experiences of participating in the activities. Data including the participants’ personality types, researchers’ notes during the observation and the participants’ responses to interview questions were collected.

Results and Discussion

Data collected from both observation and focus group were analyzed. In this section, the findings from observations and surveys were first presented separately, and then were combined and triangulated to provide answers to the research questions.

Observations

When analyzing the observation data, we compared the following things in the two environments: the duration of the activities, the content of communication, the amount of verbal communication, the amount of non-verbal communication, the language style and the effect of personality type.

Duration. The face-to-face activity was completed in one minute, thirty-seven seconds. This time frame was consistent with the other face-to-face role plays being conducted by the other control groups. Talking and activity ceased abruptly after the participants announced that they had completed the role play. On the other hand, the Second Life role play had a duration of 15 minutes. Participants continued to converse and comment on their experience after the play had ceased.

Content. The face-to-face role play dialogue was notably faithful to the original material given the participants, while the Second Life role-play deviated significantly from the script. This adherence to the script was also observed in the other groups’ role-playing activities.

For instance, in both the provided script for the performance avoidance (face-to-face activity) and the personal interest value (Second Life activity) student, notes on behavior were included as suggestions for role-play performance. Below are some excerpts from the scripts and actual performance to illustrate this difference:

Face-to-Face Role-Play

Performance Avoidance script:

During a social studies test Dave sharpens his pencil twice, picks up an eraser that has fallen to the floor, and ties his shoelaces. He makes no attempt to conceal his lack of attention to the questions. To the contrary, he seems eager for everyone to notice that he is not trying. The teacher publicly reminds him several times to get to work, giving Dave and his classmates the message that if he tried, his performance, which will otherwise inevitably be poor, might be better. This of course, is exactly the interpretation Dave desires.

Dave's strategies serve their purpose, at least in the short term. He manages to complete some assignments with a respectable, if not an excellent, level of performance. By fooling around while he is supposed to be taking tests (when other strategies, such as cheating, are not available), he at least avoids appearing dumb, the logical conclusion associated with poor performance and high effort. By not trying, he creates an alternative explanation for failure, leaving open the question of whether he would have done well on the test if he had tried.

Performance Avoidance actual observation:

Student 3 stretched her neck and looked at student 4’s paper.

2. "Quit looking at my paper!” Student 4 shouted out.

3. The teacher came up to the two students, saying “Quiet down, you are taking a test!” And then she walked back toward the blackboard, starting to write on the blackboard – “March 29, 2007 Test #4”.

Student 3 peeked at student 4’s paper again.

4. “Stop!” Student 4 shouted in an even louder voice.

5. “Is there a problem?” The teacher turned back and asked.

6. “No, no.” Student 3 replied in a haste. She buried her head, writing something on the paper. But not very long, she started to sharp her pencil.

7. The teacher looked at her and frowned,” I asked before class if anyone needed their pencils sharpened.”

8. “I just thought I would sharpen it again.” Student 4 murmured.

9. The narrator started to read, “Dave’s strategies serve the purpose at least in a short term. He manages to complete some assignments with an acceptable amount of excellence and performance. By fooling around while he is supposed to be taking a test, other strategies such as cheating are not available, he at least avoids appearing dumb, the logical conclusion associated with poor performance and high effort. By not trying, he creates an alternative explanation for failure, leaving open the question whether he would have done well on the test if he had tried.”

Second Life Role-Play

Personal Interest Value script:

Typically, Santos shows little interest in schoolwork. Threats of bad grades have no effect because he is quite satisfied with a grade that he can achieve with little effort.He usually finishes his work, but he never does more than the minimum. He makes it a rule never to study for a test because he knows that he can pass most tests simply by paying marginal attention in class. Santos knows he is smart, but he is not inclined to show off. He is not interested in gaining his peers' respect by demonstrating academic excellence, and he is not interested in gaining his teachers' respect at all. He is motivated to stay out of trouble -- at least most of the time.Consequently, he does what is required to keep teachers "off his back."

Personal Interest Value actual observation:

49. (Teacher)You: OK you little rascals ..Did you study for today's test?

50. (Peer 1)Sadie McMillan: Of course I did!

51. (PIV Student) Kimberly Krasner: umm, not really.

52. (Peer 2) Jes Rossini: me either

53. (PIV Student) Kimberly Krasner: me and jes went to a baseball game last night

54. (PIV Student) Kimberly Krasner: it was sooooo much fun!

55. (Teacher)You: Good job Sadie, ok for the rest of you good luck

56. (Peer 1)Sadie McMillan: are you serious?

57. (Peer 2) Jes Rossini: yeah, it was so much fun!

58. (PIV Student) Kimberly Krasner: yeah! why didn't you come?

59. (Peer 1)Sadie McMillan: do you realize how important the test is?

60. (Peer 2) Jes Rossini: its only like 50% of the grade....

61. (Teacher)You: Yeah so take out a pen or pencil

62. (Peer 2) Jes Rossini: u still have the other half...

63. (Peer 1)Sadie McMillan: umm exactly

64. (PIV Student) Kimberly Krasner: yeah it doesn't matter

65. (PIV Student) Kimberly Krasner: it's only a quiz

Verbal Communication. Verbal communications were far more numerous in the Second Life role play than in the face-to-face. In Second Life, participants used 108 verbal communications ranging from one word sentences to multi-word sentences. Additionally, participants continued to communicate after they had decided they were finished, for another 13 lines of verbal communication. In the face-to-face role-play, only 9 lines of verbal dialogue were observed, with communication ceasing shortly after the conclusion of the performance (see appendix).

Non-verbal Communication. Communication in the face-to-face role play was voice based on physical cues and facial expressions. Communication in Second Life was mainly text and avatar-based, and students could choose certain gestures and expressions to make their avatar laugh, jump, and so on. There was more non-verbal communication in face-to-face environment as compared to second life.

Language Style. The Second Life role-play dialogue featured informal speech, name-calling, “yelling” (dialogue written in all caps) and cursing among the participants, where, in contrast, the face-to-face dialogue was more restrained, focused and formal. Once again, this behavior observed in the face-to-face role-play was consistent with that observed in other groups’ interactions with one another.

For example, dialogue from the Second Life observation included the following verbal outbursts:

3. (PIV student) Kimberly Krasner: Get lost!

13. (Teacher)You: YOUR GUYS ARE LOSERS AHAH

22. (Teacher) You shout: STOP PLAYING GAMES CLASS..SHUT THE HELL UP!

23. (Peer 1) Sadie McMillan: watch your language teacher!

24. (PIV student) Kimberly Krasner: ummm i don't think you can say that to us

25. (Peer 1) Sadie McMillan: thats upsetting

26. (Peer 2) Jes Rossini: your setting a bad example

27. (PIV student) Kimberly Krasner: KMB!

28. (Teacher) You shout: YOU GUYS ARE GETTING ON MY FUCKING NERVE..IM GOING TO START CALLING PARENTS IN A MINUTE

29. (Peer 2)Jes Rossini: whoa! watch it missy!

30. (Peer 1) Sadie McMillan: ohhhh bad word

31. (Teacher) You: YOU GUYS ARE SUCK FUCKING BABIES...ACTING LIKE YOU HAVENT HEARD A CURSE WORD BEFORE

36. (Teacher) You: WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING BOUT

39. (Teacher) You: Jes is a freak...how u get in the air..FREAK!

82. (PIV student) Kimberly Krasner: Get lost!

83. (Peer 1) Sadie McMillan: i am taking the test away from the weirdos there

84. (Teacher) You: do anyone else wants to leave ?

85. Jes Rossini: weirdos! what! please, we just like to have fun...

The Effect of Personality Type. The researchers suspected that data collected from the Myers-Briggs Typology assessment would have some relationship to the observation data. As stated earlier in this paper, two of the students were assessed as being extroverted and two of the students exhibited introverted tendencies. One of the Second Life lightly introverted-assessed students appeared to exhibit a high frequency of anti-social behavior (“yelling,” cursing, name-calling and informal speech). This participant also assumed the role of the “teacher” in both activities. Her behavior in the face-to-face activity was remarkably more restrained and professional, as would be expected of an actual “teacher” in a classroom.

On the other hand, one of the extroverted-assessed students chose the role of the “motivationally-challenged” student in both role-playing activities. Her verbal expressions were far more numerous and playful in the Second Life activity than in the face-to-face, but she was polite and friendly in both activities. All four participants, regardless of personality typology, were significantly more verbal in the Second Life activity than in the face-to-face.

Interview

We read through the student responses to interview questions several times, in order to identify the major themes emerged from their responses. Once a major theme was found, we looked for both confirming and disconfirming data. Altogether five major themes emerged from the analysis.

Less inhibitions in Second Life. Students felt that they were less constrained and more open in Second Life. As the students put it, “You’re more open online. Definitely. You let your personality kind of go … without overthinking.” “When you’re online it’s like you’re uninhibited.” (S1) It is not quite clear why they felt that way. One possible explanation is that Second Life is a new and novel environment for the students. Therefore, they found it was fun and exciting to explore and play around. Just as the students commented, “It was fun…Everyone was saying this is cool, go here, try and fight.” (S3). The students might regard the role play in Second Life as playing on something fun, instead of completing a classroom task. In this way, they were more likely to free themselves up and be less restricted by other things like classroom rules. Another possible explanation is when students performed role play with their avatars in Second Life, they had a less sense of anxiety, because “everyone’s not staring at you” (S4). Therefore, in Second Life, they “(do) not really care that it’s not really you.” (S1)

Less Control in Second Life. Right after the role play in the Second Life was over, one student continued to type in Second Life, “That totally did NOT go how we planned”, and another student responded “I don't know if it went along with what we were supposed to do.” Students found face to face role play was “more structured” (S1), and it was hard for them to have the same control over the direction of their conversation in Second Life -- “We just kept saying things and they kind of took off, went nowhere.” (S1) This could perhaps be explained by the first theme. As students became less constrained, they were more likely to say whatever they want instead of sticking to their original scripts. Another possible reason is that, in face to face environment, people always take turns to talk, so the listener is dealing with only one piece of information at one time. In Second Life, however, people could type simultaneously in Second Life, which produce a huge amount of information for them to read and respond. One student complained that it is hard to keep track of the conversation when everyone was typing like crazy, “In second life, each of us has a conversation on top of each other. Like I might respond to hers, but somebody else gets to it before me. And they change the conversation, so my response is like where did that come from … and then you gotta keep reading, instead of reading hers, versus talking, then everybody knows who you are right off the bat, it’s a little more slower.” (S2) In situation like this, it must be hard to carry out the original plan.

Harder to Use Non-verbal Cues in Second Life. “You can express emotions and stuff (in face-to-face environment), but while you are online you really can’t.” (S3) Though Second Life allows the players to choose their gestures and expressions, students still felt it hard to actually use them during the conversation. This is probably because the conversation went very fast, and the students found they did not have time to look for and add these non-verbal cues while kept the conversation going. As one student said, “…you’ve gotta hurry up and find the little gestures, when you’re in person this doesn’t happen.” (S4) It could also be true that students were so engaged in the conversation, that they found looking for those little cues was distracting. It was unknown if more time had been spent training the participants to produce gestures proficiently, whether the students would have done it differently or not.

More Ambiguity in Second Life. It seems students felt sometimes meanings were ambiguous in Second Life, with one student saying, “Things can be taken in so many different ways, like you could be joking about something to some people and somebody might think that you’re not.” (S3) This is probably related to the previous theme. As there were little non-verbal cues, it was hard to interpret what was said. One student said, “Online it’s hard to figure out what emotions are showing.” (S2)

The Effect of No Narrator in Second Life. The researchers intentionally asked students whether the elimination of narrator in Second Life had any consequence on their performance. Student 1 and 3 answered the question. Student 1 responded, “It didn’t set the stage so no one knew what was gong on.” This might be true. As the two researchers were observing the Second Life role play, they found it hard to figure out who was who and what was going on. Student 3 responded in a different way, “We were actually gonna do more role playing than someone else who is saying ‘Oh now this is gonna happen.’” It suggested the elimination of narrator may lead to a less structured and more spontaneous interaction among the four students.

Summary

Based on the above analysis, it was clear that student interactions in face-to-face environment and Second Life differ in three ways. First, there were more verbal interactions and less non-verbal interactions in Second Life. Second, in Second Life, the interactions were less focused in content. Third, in Second Life, the interactions were more informal.

In Second Life, the environment was novel and fun, which stimulated the students' interest to participate more actively or to intentionally play with it. Secondly, the students performed role play with avatars in Second Life, so they were less worried about being watched by someone else, and were more likely to say whatever they wanted to say. Therefore, they tended to have a greater amount of interactions and in a less formal way. In addition, as it was a little inconvenient to choose gestures and expressions in Second Life, verbal communication almost became the only way to interact. While several people were able to type simultaneously, a lot of information was produced at one time. When students started to respond to each other, more information was produced. It soon led to an explosion of verbal exchanges. This might blurred the direction the students wanted to go, so they had little choice but to be carried away by the flow of their conversation.

In addition, one of the introverted students interacted more with others in Second Life. According the observation data, this happened with the student who played the teacher roles in both F2F and SL activities. This could mean that personality type constraints normally present in face-to-face interactions have been disabled in Second Life.

Admittedly, the elimination of narrator may also have affected the nature of interactions in Second Life. However, we should take caution in reaching the conclusion that the elimination of narrator led to the less structured, more spontaneous conversation, and greater amount of interactions because of the following reasons. First, students were allowed to plan for their role plays in both environments. Therefore, before they started each role play, they should have known quite well how they were going to act this out. It is not completely as Student 1 described when she said “It didn’t set the stage so no one knew what was gong on.” Second, according to the interview data, there were factors other than the narrator that were influencing the interactions in the role play, such as increased ambiguity of meaning, fewer inhibitions, harder to see non-verbal cues and so on. Several factors coexisted to affect the nature of interactions, and lack of narrator control is just one of them. Third, even if there were a narrator in the Second Life role playing activity, it is doubtful whether the interactions would go more structured and more formal. Due to the spontaneous nature of the Second Life activity, and the lowered inhibition, it is doubtful whether the narrator's voice would still be heard, or whether the narrator would still be able to exert an influence over the other players as much as it did in the face-to-face environment.

Conclusion/Implications

For instructors or educators who are interested in including role-plays in online education, the findings from this study are encouraging. It seems that a 3D environment like Second Life holds great potential in enhancing the interactions between the role-players.

There are other features revealed by this study about the Second Life environment for role playing, e.g. less focus, lowered inhibitions, increased spontaneity and decreased control. It is difficult to judge and claim whether these features are desirable or not. The value judgment depends on the purpose of the activity designers. If the purpose is for the students to replay a literary work according to scripts, then less focus would not be desirable. However, the parallel spontaneity may become more desirable if the purpose is to observe the natural responses in certain situations. Further, we observed a considerable degree of informal language in the Second Life transcripts. The informality of language may be undesirable and counterproductive for some discussions and situations, but may be appropriate for others.

Considering two of the major concepts in the literature, anonymity and personality, we have come to new understanding. It seems that anonymity is not so much a concern for the Second Life players in this study, at least not as important as the literature suggests, because these players knew one another’s identities and yet interaction was not impeded.

As for student personality, it may be situational. The SL environment helped a few of the participants exhibit personality traits that are not usually demonstrated in daily life. Or, we may go one step further to suggest that the concept of personality we normally talk about is based on information collected from face-to-face life. A more accurate description or estimation of personality in modern life should consider including information collected from the second life, the virtual world.

While we are excited about the findings in our study, we also realize the limitations of the study. The most obvious one is related to the sample size and structure, only four, and all female students. This definitely raises concerns over generalization. Besides, post hoc speculation about the elimination of the narrator in Second Life has brought us to wonder what would happen if there were a narrator in the Second Life role play. A third confounding variable we are aware of is the excitement the participants may have experienced in a digital environment like SL. It may be argued that the participants' increased interactivity may be the result of the unfamiliarity and novelty of environment. Therefore, in future studies, it may be desirable to increase the sample size, to have a better control of the two conditions, and to explore what educational objectives and tasks can be better achieved in such 3D online environment as compared to face-to-face environment.

Despite of the limitations, this study has revealed interesting findings. Although we need more evidence, these initial findings definitely warrant further research. It is expected that further research will clarify some important issues, and will better inform the instructors and instructional designers of the educational implications of 3D online environments such as SL.

References

Bell, M. (2001a). A case study of an online role play for academic staff. Meeting at the crossroads: Proceedings of the annual conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, 63-72.

Bell, M. (2001b). Online role -play: Anonymity, engagement and risk. Education Media International, 38(4), 251-260.

Bullen, M. (1998). Participation and ciritical thinking in online university distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 13(2). Retrieved on March, 20, 2007 from http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol13.2/bullen.html.

Burns, A. C., & Gentry, J. W. (1998). Motivating students to engage in experiential learning: a tension-to-learn theory. Simulation and Gaming, 29, 133-151.

Dickey, M.D. (2005). Three-dimensional virtual worlds and distance learning: two case studies of Active Worlds as a medium for distance education, British Journal of Educational Technology 36(3): 439-451.

Dickey, M.D. (2003). Teaching in 3D: Pedagogical affordances and constraints of 3D virtual worlds for synchronous distance learning. Distance Education. 24(1), 105-122.

Freeman, M. & Bamford, A. (2004). Student choice of Anonymity for learner identity in online learning discussion forums. International Journal on E-learning. 3(3), 45-53.

Freeman, M. & Capper, J. (1999) Exploiting the web for education: An anonymous asynchronous role simulation. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 15 (1), 95–116.

Glaser, Barney G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs. forcing. Mill Valley, Ca.: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago.: Aldine.

Harasim, L. (1989). Online education: An environment for collaboration and intellectual amplification. In R. Mason & A. Kaye (Eds.), Mindweave: Communication, computers, and distance education (pp. 50-62). New York: Pergamon Press.

Ladousse, G. (1987) Role Play. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ments, V. (1989).The Effective Use of Role Play: A Handbook for Teachers and Trainers. New York: Nichols Publishing.

Sullivan, P. (2002). “It’s easier to be yourself when you are invisible”: Female college students discuss their online classroom experience. Innovative Higher Education, 27(2), 129-144.

Individual Immersion Project

The Underneath Secrets

- Why I fall in love with my virtual pet

“Neopets is extremely addictive, and sometimes I find myself sneaking around to get onto the computer. That worries me some, that the whole word is obsessed with something virtual...” One Neopets player wrote this comment under Wingfield’s article—Web’s addictive neopets are ready for big career leap. If I saw this comment several months ago, I would smile contemptuously, thinking people who are so into a virtual pet are fools. But now, I am one of them!

Neopets (www.neopets.com/) is an online virtual pet game. The site was opened to the public on November 15, 1999, by Adam Powell and Donna Williams. It gradually grows into one of the most popular and addictive Web sites among kids. Users of the site become custodians of colorful, cartoon-like pets in Neopia, an imaginary world with its own currency (Neopoints), stock market (the Neodaq) and weather system.

It stands out among Web sites for its “stickiness,” an industry term referring to how much time users spend on a site. WIngfield wrote in his article, during December 2004, the 2.9 million visitors to Neopets.com spent on average more than three hours there, ranking the site fourth among all U.S. sites. That puts Neopets ahead of popular sites such as eBay and Yahoo. (Internet service providers AOL.com and Juno.com rank first and second respectively, with Electronic Arts’ online gaming sites in third place.) As I went and checked the neopet stats on the Neopets site, I found by April 30, 2007, there are 138.74 million owners and 204.17 million neopets on this site!

So, how can a virtual pet site become so popular? As I am spending increasingly amount of time on the site daily, and want very much to stop this trend so as to dispel my boyfriend’s foolish idea that I love my pet more than him, I am in a haste to discover the underneath secrets. “Once I discover I am attracted by nothing but some tricks of the game designers,” I said to myself, “I will become invincible to them.”

Secret No. 1: Emotional attachment – “I love my pet!”

As I reflected back, I found Neopet designers play their tricks of attracting the players at the very beginning of this game! When I logged in the site for the first time, I was asked to create a pet by myself. All sorts of choices were in my hand. I could choose whatever types of pets I like; the color and name of my pet; and also what she likes doing, how she greets others, as well as where she lives. Interestingly, I found myself making every choice carefully and deliberately, always after a fully comparison of all the alternatives. When I finally created the pet, I was so satisfied with my cute little pet that I found I already began to like her! The whole process of personalizing and creating a pet that was unique indeed made me feel that she was my pet, and I was responsible for her wellbeing. James Paul Gee, a professor who studies the features of good video games and their implications for education, found good games usually allow the players to co-design, customize the game, and manipulate a character. The whole process empowers the game players and offers the players identities that trigger a deep investment on the part of the players.

Taking care of my pet is a painstaking process. I have to play a lot of online games to earn neopoints, the virtual currency. Initially, the price for food is very high for poor owners like me. I have to play hard! Even when I get enough Neopoints, buying food is difficult too. Usually, the cheapest food goes very fast. Very often, when I eventually found in excitement a food I can afford and clicked on the food, it would tell me the food was sold! All my work got rewarded, however, when I fed the food to my pet and saw her feeling contented and happy with the delicious food. My little pet was growing stronger and smarter under my care. I clearly know there is no real living creature there! My pet is just a few lines of scripts. But I can feel her existence. I log onto the site a couple of times everyday, playing games, buying food for her, and taking her out to explore the various places. The last thing I do before I go to bed is to take a look at my little pet and make sure she is alright. The longer time I invested on taking care of my pet, the more I like her and care about her.

Secret No. 2: Sense of Reality – “It is a real world!”

I soon discover the second secret, which is much related to the previous one. The pet looks so real to me! I could still remember virtual pets in earlier days usually had a message box to display the pet's internal variable, health state or emotion like earlier generations. For neopets, however, they are not just a message box. They can communicate with you about their feelings in text, they have facial expressions and gestures and they have emotions so that it makes you feel they are not just a set of numbers and graphs! They are natural and real, and your relationship with them is real.

What is more, not only does the pet looks real, the whole virtual planet, which is called Neopia, looks so real too! You can purchase virtual stocks in thirty Neopian companies and learn to manage money, develop budgets, understand responsibility, and experience real world economics. A Neodaq Index of stocks is published daily. You can use neopoints to take your pets shopping, have them cared for during family vacations at the NeoLodge, or even treat them to a pet massage at the NeoSpa. You can also build "Neohomes" for your pet after you buy a plot of land. Each room costs neopoints to build, and furniture may be put in and arranged. Extensions such as lighting, flooring, and insurance can also be purchased! It is just a mini world with almost everything you can find in the real world!

One thing that adds to the players’ sense of reality is that, just like in the real life, in Neopia, there is always something happening out of your control or expectation. For example, you pets may get sick at any time! You will never know for sure how you pet becomes ill and you have to try various ways in order to cure it! But there are times that something good will happen too. A fairy may come and surprise you with a very special gift for your pet or you may accidentally find a piece of rare and delicious food…

Secret No. 3: Multiple Choices – “I can always find something that turns me on!”

As I said, you have to make money (neopoints) to keep your pets strong and happy. But there are so many ways to make money, and you can simply choose something you like or you are good at. You can make money by completing an occasional survey (limited to one every three weeks), playing and winning games such as "Cinnamon Toast Crunch Umpire Strikes Out" or "Hot Wheels World Race" (Again, there are hundreds of games to choose from), watching movie trailers and commercials, or buying and profitably selling valuable commodities such as McDonald's Fries or Heinz' Easy Squirt ketchup bottle. You can also buy and hold onto your food items as speculation and sell or trade them profitably at a future time. In addition, on the planet of Neopia, there are various "themed" worlds: Tyrannia (prehistoric), Faerieland (faeries), Mystery Island (Tropical), Haunted Woods (Halloween/spooky), Krawk Island (pirates), Lost Desert (Ancient Egyptian), and so on. I have not even explored one third of them! There are also mini worlds and sub-worlds, such as Roo Island, Neovia, Kiko Lake, and The Lost City of Geraptiku. Each of these worlds or regions has unique shops, games, and other activities based on its theme.

It goes without saying that every game has its own selling points, which makes it attractive to a certain group of people. Garneau talked about how various games attract their players in his essay Fourteen Forms of Fun. According to him, some games attracts players who likes to gain power, progress rapidly, and accumulate in-game symbols of wealth or status; some attract those who like to challenge and compete with others, some attract those who want to socialize and develop relationships with others, some attract those who prefer working with teamwork, and some others attract those who love to be immersed in the plot or to explore the unknown. Neopets, however, manages to attract all the types of players, because the players have the freedom of choosing from a variety of games or activities in order to achieve the ultimate goal -- to make their neopets live a better life. There is just one final goal, and the ways to achieve that goal are immense. This indeed attracts and motivates different types of players.

Secret No. 4: Challenging Tasks – “There is always more to do to make my pet live better!”

Neopets allow all levels of players to enjoy the game, be you a beginner or an expert. It provides the players experiences that are challenging enough, so that the players would get neither bored nor frustrated. Csikszentmihalyi, the author of Flow: The psychology of optimal experience, describes the characteristics of the task that could lead people to flow experience. The task should be challenging while not far beyond the performer’s ability. Neopets definitely knows about this. It starts with very easy tasks. Usually the players don’t have much money at the very beginning. If the players are not very skilled at games initially, they are even not going to earn enough to buy food for their pets. Neopets makes lives easy for the new players by creating a Soup Kitchen. If you don’t have enough money, you can come to the Soup Kitchen to get free food for your pets. (The Soup Fairy also keeps track of your bank account and your shop till, so if you are rich enough, you will never get free soup!) But gradually, as your competence grows, the game become increasingly demanding. In order to keep the pets in a good mood, make them become stronger and more intelligent, and live better lives, you have to buy pet-pets and toys for them, build and decorate their houses, acquire equipment for them to compete with other characters or play in the Battledome… There are always more things to do! And, you can have more pets – some of which are rare and powerful, and can only be adopted by responsible owners!

Neopets always provides clear instructions and guidance for new players. You don’t know how to open your own shop? Doesn’t matter! Just go to “Your Shop” page, and you will find instructions that guide you through the whole process of having your own business. There is also Neoboards where you can ask questions or find help and support for playing games. So, you will always be able to find challenge in Neopia and you will never feel you are fighting alone.

Abandon!

Having discovered all these secrets, I decided that the best way to avoid being attracted or trapped is to run away from Neopia. So I made a big decision – I would abandon my pet and leave Neopia! I took my pet to the Neopian Pound, the place where people can adopt or abandon a pet. Dr. Death was sitting behind a desk, and there was a post in front of his desk, saying “Don’t disown your poor Neopet!” As I moved my mouse over the word “Abandon”, a sentence popped up, “Leave your pet with this scary looking Techo?” “Well, you see? It is another trick to make me stay!” I said to myself, “I will not listen to you this time!” I clicked firmly on the word “Abandon”, feeling a sense of relief --- I finally did it! I finally can free myself from the virtual pets’ world! However, a page showed up with my poor little pet on it. She was crying. There is a button beneath her – Get rid of me! “Oh God! They are torturing me…They’ve seen through my weakness. I should not let them win!” I pressed the button, saying“Yeah! I am going to get rid of you.” Another page showed up, she was still there, crying! Sure??—she was asking. “Yes, I do!” I pressed the button quickly. What…Really sure?—She appeared again, still begging me. The good memories of feeding and playing with my little pet sort of came to my mind at that moment. I was a very caring owner and she was now a strong and smart pet under my care. She obviously loves me and she does not want to leave me! “But, no…these are just tricks, remember? Press the button! Press the button! Don’t be fooled!” So, I pressed the button again, and my heart sank. I was never going to be able to see my little pet. What her life is going to be without my care? Will the second owner treat her well?...Well, let it go! Everything will be fine again…

I was almost feeling delighted when I saw her crying face showing up on the page again. She was not gone. Don’t leave me! She said. “Of course I won’t!” This time, I exclaimed with great pleasure. I happily took her back to our little home. I fed her until her got bloated. I swear to her that I would never do that again. No, she is not just virtual! She is real, as the joy she brings to me is so real!

Week 15 Games: Design

Articles Read

Koster, R. (2004). A theory of fun for game design: What games aren't. Gamasutra, December 3.

Gee, J. P. (2004). Learning by design: Games as learning machines. Gamasutra, March, 24

Garneau, P-A. (2001). Fourteen Forms of Fun. Gamasutra, October 12.

Prensky, M. (2001). Fun, Play and Games: What Makes Games Engaging. Chapter 5 in Digital Game Based Learning. NY: McGraw Hill. (From the author's website)

Article Summary

Koster, R. (2004). A theory of fun for game design: What games aren't. Gamasutra, December 3.

In this piece, Koster argued that games are about teaching underlying patterns, and they train their players to ignore the fiction that wraps the patterns. People don’t play games because of the stories. The stories that wrap the games are usually side dishes for the brain. And the part of games that is least understood is “the formal abstract system portion of it, the mathematical part of it, and the chunky part of it”. Games are not about beauty or delight. A lot of aesthetic elements make players feel good, but not necessarily fun. Games are not about jockeying for social status either. Games stand, in their own right, as something incredibly valuable. According to Koster, fun is defined as the feedback the brain gives us when we are absorbing patterns for learning purposes. Fun is about learning in a context where there is no pressure, and that is why games matter.

Gee, J. P. (2004). Learning by design: Games as learning machines. Gamasutra, March, 24

Gee discussed explored the question of how good game designers manage to get new players to learn long, complex, and difficult games, and listed the principles of learning built into good computer and video games. The first section is empowered learners, which includes allowing the game players to co-design, customize the game, manipulate a character, and offering players identities that trigger a deep investment on the part of the player. The second section is problem solving. The problems in good games are well ordered; Good games are challenging but doable; Good games create and support the cycle of expertise; good games give verbal information that is often in a manual; good games offer players fish tanks and sandbox either as tutorials or as their first level or two. In addition, in good games, players learn and practice skill packages as part and parcel of accomplishing things they need and want to accomplish. The third section is understanding. Good games help players see and understand how each of the elements in the game fit into the overall system of the game; good games can make abstract ideas concretely realized in image and action.

Garneau, P-A. (2001). Fourteen Forms of Fun. Gamasutra, October 12.

Garneau listed the fourteen categories of activities that are fundamentally entertaining, and analyzed how they can be used effectively to create more interesting games. These categories are: a. beauty: "That which pleases the senses."; b. immersion: "Going into an environment different from one's usual environment by physical means or by use of one's imagination."; c. Intellectual problem solving: "Finding solutions to problematic situations that require thought."; d. Competition: "An activity where the goal is to show one's superiority."; e. Social Interaction: "Doing things with other human beings."; f. Comedy: "Things that make one want to laugh."; g. Thrill of Danger: "Exhilaration coming from a dangerous activity."; h.Physical Activity: "Activities requiring intense physical movements." i.Love: "Strong affection toward somebody." J.Creation: "To make exist that which didn't."; k.Power: "Capacity of having a strong effect, of acting with strength."; l. Discovery: "Finding something that wasn't known before."; m. Advancement and Completion: "Going forward in, and eventually finishing, an activity." n.Application of an Ability: "Using one's physical abilities in a difficult setting.". Garneau suggested it is important to keep a balance of all these forms while creating a game.

Prensky, M. (2001). Fun, Play and Games: What Makes Games Engaging. Chapter 5 in Digital Game Based Learning. NY: McGraw Hill. (From the author's website)

Prensky explored the elements that contribute to the engagement of the best games. According to Prensky, the first two elements are fun and play. Fun, in the sense of enjoyment and pleasure, put people in a relaxed, receptive frame of mind for learning. Play, in addition to providing pleasure, increases people’s involvement, which also helps learning. The six key structural elements of games: rules, goals and objectives, outcomes and feedback, conflict/competition/challenge/opposition, interaction, representation or story are also important. Prensky claimed that, in games, rules give us structure, goals give us motivation, interactivity gives us doing, adaptivity gives us flow, outcomes and feedback gives us learning, win states gives us ego gratification, competition gives us adrenaline, problem solving sparks our creativity, interaction gives us social groups, and story gives us emotion.

My Reactions

As I read Gee’s article, I can see that Neopet possesses a lot of the elements that empowers the players. At the very beginning, the players have the freedom to choose whatever types of pets they like. You can choose the species, the color and name them whatever you like. You can also choose what they like doing, how they greet others, as well as where they will live. The whole process makes you think that your pet is unique and is your best choice. When the players got their pets, they also have choices on how they earn neopoints to keep their pets alive. For example, the simplest way is to play games. Again, there are hundreds of games for you to choose from. Besides playing games, you can earn neopoints through a diverse array of contests and activities on the site. In addition, there are discussion boards, plots, and various sets of items and other things to collect. The choices are just immense, which allows players with different preferences (Garneau, 2001) to get engaged in the game.

Discussion Questions (My Questions)

a. Think about the game you have played…What are the elements in the games that engage you?

b. How do these elements fit into the categories mentioned in our readings? Is there anything left out in these pieces?

Week 14: Games --- Who’s playing and why?

Articles Read

Avery, A. (2005). Beyond P-1: Who plays online?. Digital Games Research Association 2005 Conference: Changing views- worlds in play, Vancouver, 16 - 20 June 2005, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Digital Games Research Association.

Paras, B., & Bizzocchi, J. (2005). Game, motivation, and effective learning: An integrated model for educational game design. Digital Games Research Association 2005 Conference: Changing views- worlds in play, Vancouver, 16 - 20 June 2005, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Digital Games Research Association.

Yee, N. (2007). Motivations of play in online games. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 9, 772-775.

Article Summaries

Avery, A. (2005). Beyond P-1: Who plays online? Digital Games Research Association 2005 Conference: Changing views- worlds in play, Vancouver, 16 - 20 June 2005, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Digital Games Research Association.

The study analyzed the aggregation of empirical characteristics for 1178 gamers. The factor analysis yields data suggesting four distinct archetypes: a. “warriors”, who prioritize weapons and technology, combat and military themes, realism, graphics, and to a lesser degree, fast-reaction and unpredictable play; “Narrators”, who place priority on themes and plot, characters, exploration, using their imagination and thinking a lot; “Strategist”, who focus on complex strategies, challenging game play and mastery over the game and other players; and “Interactors”, who rate competition and cooperation with other players above all else, while they do not care about unpredictability or being made to use their imaginations.

The findings offered quantitative support for characterizing different kinds of online gamers into four categories. However, as Avery pointed out, each gamer can be comprised of a unique combination of Warrior, Narrator, Strategist, and Interactor.

Paras, B., & Bizzocchi, J. (2005). Game, motivation, and effective learning: An integrated model for educational game design. Digital Games Research Association 2005 Conference: Changing views- worlds in play, Vancouver, 16 - 20 June 2005, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Digital Games Research Association.

In this paper, the authors discussed the model they developed to integrate games and effective learning. The authors fist looked at is motivation in gaming based on Csikszentmihalyi’s flow theory. Then, they reviewed others’ research on the charateristics of effective learning environments that match the characteristics inherent in flow experiences and motivational design. The research included Norman’s seven basic requirements of a learning environment, and Lepper and Malone’s four principles for instructional game design (games must introduce challenge; the game should create sensory and cognitive curiosity; the learner should feel a sense of control; the games should use fantasy to reinforces the instructional goals and stimulate the prior interests of the learner). In addition, the author addressed the significance of reflection in learning, and suggested that in educational games, reflection must appear to the learner as one of the many in-game goals that drive the game play.

Yee, N. (2007). Motivations of play in online games. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 9, 772-775.

In this paper, Yee adopted a factor analytic approach to creating an empirically-grounded player motivation model. Here are the categories identified by Yee based on the survey to 3000 MMORPG players.

”The Achievement Component

Ÿ Advancement. The desire to gain power, progress rapidly, and accumulate in-game symbols of wealth or status.

Ÿ Mechanics. Having an interest in analyzing the underlying rules and system in order to optimize character performance.

Ÿ Competition. The desire to challenge and compete with others.

The Social Component

Ÿ Socializing. Having an interest in helping and chatting with other players.

Ÿ Relationship. The desire to form long-term meaningful relationships with others.

Ÿ Teamwork. Deriving satisfaction from being part of a group effort.

The Immersion Component

Ÿ Discovery. Finding and knowing things that most other players don’t know about.

Ÿ Role-Playing. Creating a persona with a background story and interacting with other players to create an improvised story.

Ÿ Customization. Having an interest in customizing the appearance of their character.

Ÿ Escapism. Using the online environment to avoid thinking about real life problems.”

The study also presented very briefly the relationships between motivations and demographic variables, including age, gender, and usage patterns). Yee warned against the researchers’ tendency of collapsing all video gamers into a simplistic archetype, and discussed the significances of this empirical model in future quantitative research in online games.

How does your gaming demographic and your reasons for playing fit in with the research?

I think the categories identified by Avery and Yee made perfect sense to me. I am not really into Achievement type of games. I occasionally play car racing games, but I do not really like the feeling of competing with others. Also, I am not particularly interested in acquiring power over others or becoming stronger. Social type of games is better for me. Chatting with others, helping others and making friends make me feel good. But I should say the one I like most is discovery or role-playing games, where I live as someone else in a world full of fantasy or surprises.

Two issues emerged from my thinking while reading and reflecting on the article. First, I should say that the categories are useful, but how much can we predict a person’s choice of games just based on the demographic information? The type of game that each of us chooses to play largely depends a lot on our personalities and experiences.

Second, since different people tend to be interested in different types of games, the implications for educational games would be: we need a variety of games that achieve the same educational purposes. If we only provide one type of game, students who preferred another type of game may not benefit as much from this type of game.

Questions for Discussions/My Questions

Though people’s choice of games can be explained, to some degree, by demographic information, I guess their choice can be better explained by other factors, such as personalities. Is there any research on this?

If people are motivated to play games in different ways, what is the implication of this for designing educational games?

Week 13 Constructing Community (Part II)

Articles Read

Porter, E. (2004). A Typology of Virtual Communities: A Multi-Disciplinary Foundation for Future Research. JCMC, 10 (1), Article 3, November. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue1/porter.html

Rosen, D., Woelfel, J., Krikorian, D., & Barnett, G. A. (2003). Procedures for Analyses of Online Communities. JCMC, 8 (4). Available at http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue4/rosen.html

Article Summary

Porter, E. (2004). A Typology of Virtual Communities: A Multi-Disciplinary Foundation for Future Research. JCMC, 10 (1), Article 3, November. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue1/porter.html

In this piece, Porter proposed a typology to categorize virtual communities. In this paper, a virtual community is defined as an aggregation of individuals or business partners who interact around a shared interest, where the interaction is at least partially supported and/or mediated by technology and guided by some protocols or norms. The proposed typology of virtual communities includes two first-level categories: Member-initiated and Organization-sponsored. At the second level of typology, virtual communities are categorized based on the general relationship orientation of the community. Member-initiated communities foster either social or professional relationships among members. Organization-sponsored communities foster relationships both among members and between individual members and the sponsoring organization. The paper also addressed the various attributes of virtual communities, including purpose (content of interaction), place (extent of technology mediation of interaction), platform (design of interaction), population interaction structure (pattern of interaction), and profit model (return on interaction). Finally, Porter evaluated the typology based on Hunt’s (1991) criteria, and stated the advantages of this typology over competing typologies.

Rosen, D., Woelfel, J., Krikorian, D., & Barnett, G. A. (2003). Procedures for Analyses of Online Communities. JCMC, 8 (4). Available at http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue4/rosen.html

In this piece, Rosen et al. presented a set of procedures for the analysis and interpretation of the content and structure of online networks and communities. An neural-based content analysis software -- Catpac was used to analyze data based on set parameters. Rosen et al. used the chat data from the Cornell Theory Center’s SciCentr, and analyzed the difference between trends of what the high school students are saying compared to what the Cornell mentors are saying, the gender differences and similarities, and so on. The method of parsing chat data with Catpac turned out to be extremely useful to study the data on individual and group levels. It allows users to input a name file allowing for the immediate analysis of the data on any demographic or systems level. Rosen et al. also talked about the limitations of Catpac and offered suggestions on how to further improve the Catpac.

What do you see as *the* most important impediment or problem for online socializing?

I see the most important impediment for online socializing is lack of accountability. In most cases, people don’t need to be accountable to anyone, because they are anonymous, or because they believe online world is a virtual world where trust and honesty are no longer meaningful. Anonymity has its own advantages such as allowing people to express their views more freely. However, Kevin Kelly, mathematician, a Senior Researcher at Stanford University, and Executive Director of Stanford University's Center for the Study of Language and Information, warns of the dangers of anonymity. According to him, it's OK in small doses, but too much of it is a problem: "(I)n every system that I have seen where anonymity becomes common, the system fails. The recent taint in the honor of Wikipedia stems from the extreme ease which anonymous declarations can be put into a very visible public record. Communities infected with anonymity will either collapse, or shift the anonymous to pseudo-anonymous, as in eBay, where you have a traceable identity behind an invented nickname." Therefore, I think for any online communities it is important to make clear to the members how much trust each member could have on other members, and to figure out how to build such trust.

Discussion Questions (My Questions)

a. What are the particular issues we should pay attention to when analyzing the interactions in an online community?

b. As I have discussed, anonymity has its own advantages and disadvantages. How could we make the best use of its advantages and avoid its disadvantages in educational settings?

Week 11 Constructing Community (Part I)

Articles to Read

Wallace, P. (1999). Intergroup conflict and cooperation. The psychology of the Internet (pp. 84-109). London: Cambridge University Press. [Read this eBook - MSU authorized users]

Williams, D., Ducheneaut, N., Xiong, L., Zhang, Y., Yee, N. & Nickell, E. (2006). From tree house to barracks: The social life of guilds in World of Warcraft. Games and Culture, 1(4), 338-361.

Steinkuehler, C. & Williams, D. (2006). Where Everybody Knows Your (Screen) Name: Online Games as 'Third Places.' Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4).

Article Summaries

Wallace, P. (1999). Intergroup conflict and cooperation. The psychology of the Internet (pp. 84-109). London: Cambridge University Press.

In this chapter, Wallace explored the nature of group conflict and cooperation on the Internet, and addressed the question of whether the Interent created an environment that would be the foundation for a global community where cohesive and satisfying groups would emerge, free of intergroup tension and prejudice. Based on classic experiments in social psychology that explored intergroup rivalries on the Internet games

, when the environment fosters group identity, cohesive groups emerge; When a group feels threatened by outsider intrusion, the members band together more closely; If a valued superordinate goal requires cooperation, intergroup tension will decline; People tend to identify with a group and favor its members, despite the arbitrariness and absurdity of the criteria for group membership. According to people who create and run the multiplayer games, there are four main motivations for people to play games, to accumulate treasure or increase skill as an achiever, to enjoy mapping the topology of the game as an explorer, and to socialize or to act as a killer. Wallace also discussed that the Internet tended to allow more participation by lower status members, and expertism is one of those –isms that is probably more prevalent on the Internet than in real life. Although Internet users are not a cohesive ingroup, sometimes something may raise their hackles and cause them to coalesce in some surprisingly large numbers.

Williams, D., Ducheneaut, N., Xiong, L., Zhang, Y., Yee, N. & Nickell, E. (2006). From tree house to barracks: The social life of guilds in World of Warcraft. Games and Culture, 1(4), 338-361.

In this study, the authors explored the social life of guilds in a popular massively multiplayer online game – World of Warcraft. The study addressed three sets of research questions: What kinds of social organizations do players create in the game? What kind of roles and social relationships do players develop within guilds and what were the social consequences. To what extent does the social interface impact social interactions? An initial survey and network mapping of players and guilds were conducted. A group of players was interviewed and the interview transcripts were reviewed to explore players’ behaviors, attitudes, and opinions, the meanings they make, the social capital they derive, and the networks they form. It was found that players used to game to extend real life relationships, meet new people, form relationships of varying strength, and use others merely as a backdrop. The game’s mechanic made was the key moderator, as different mechanic encourages certain kinds of interaction while discourages others.

Steinkuehler, C. & Williams, D. (2006). Where Everybody Knows Your (Screen) Name: Online Games as 'Third Places.' Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4).

The article examined the effects on social engagement of one particular increasingly popular online activity--large, collaborative online massively multiplayer online games (MMOs). In an effort to understand (a) the extent to which such virtual worlds are structurally similar to "third places" for informal sociability, and (b) their potential function in terms of social capital, the authors drew on both the media effects analysis, which revealed broad and significant patterns of MMQ use and effect, and cognitive research, which explicated the micro-level processes by which those macro-level patterns are created, maintained and transformed over time. Based on the two independent lines of MMO research, the authors presented a theoretical framework for understanding the form and function of MMOs. It is concluded that by providing spaces for social interaction and relationships beyond the workplace and home, MMOs have the capacity to function as one form of a new "third place" for informal sociability. Participation in such virtual "third places" appears particularly well suited to the formation of bridging social capital—social relationships that, while not usually providing deep emotional support, typically function to expose the individual to a diversity of worldviews.

My Reaction

What do you see as *the* strong pull towards online socializing?

One of the most attractive features of online socializing is the easy access to others. Everyone could tremendous expand their circle of socializing through online community. It is much easier to find someone who shares the same interest as you, to interact with someone you will never have a chance to meet before. Online socialization and communication is freed from the limit of time and place. It makes possible the interactions which is previously impossible.
Another feature that makes online socializing attractive is that online communication can magnify certain aspects of the participants and make some other aspects less visible. As Wallace pointed out, people’s status is less visible in online communities, while the expertism turned out to be more evident. Therefore, some of those who are disadvantaged in the face-to-face socialization, might benefit tremendously from interacting with people in online environment.

Discussion Questions (My Questions)

What is the implication of online community for education?

How do the various educational online communities work? What motivates people in participating in these educational online communities?