Identities and Abilities Group 2 SU 09

From WikEd

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Educational Policy Studies 415 - Information Technology Ethics

Instructor: Nick Burbules

Co-Instructor: Heather Greenhalgh-Spencer

Authors: Andrew Barrett, Ashley Clow, Stephanie Dawson, Drea Gallaga, Gabriel Merrin, Cynthia Smith, & Lisa Zenno

Contents 1 Introduction 1.1 What is identity? 1.2 What is ability? 1.3 The Changing Landscape of Identity & Ability 1.4 Educational Implications 2 Real Life Identities vs. Virtual Identities 2.1 Body vs. virtual self 2.2 Integration in youth culture 2.3 Digital natives vs. Digital Immigrants 3 Cloak of anonymity 3.1 Overview of the cloak of anonymity 3.2 Educational implications 4 Perception and Representation 4.1 Overview 4.2 Race 4.3 Gender 4.4 Gender Identity and Sexual orientation 4.5 Minority/Marginalized Identity and Implications for Education 5 Online Relationships and Communication 5.1 Online relationships 5.2 Types of computer-mediated communication 5.3 Modality switching 5.4 Trust and Respect 5.5 Harassment and Violence 6 Technology and Student Ability 6.1 Technology in the classroom 6.2 Student ability levels 6.3 Ability Gap 6.4 Assistive Technology 6.5 Disability and Self-Expression 7 Future Forecast 7.1 Building global citizens 7.2 “Playing” to build skills in identities 7.3 Focus on Prospective Identities 8 Conclusion 9 References 10 Additional Links

Introduction

Who are you online? Are you the same person in the cyber world as you are in your everyday life? What do the commonly used terms of identity and ability really speak to?

Proliferation of new technologies has allowed people to connect in more ways than ever before. Yet the relative anonymity of the online world coupled with physical separation that goes along with it has changed how these connections between people occur. How have these technologies impacted our identities both when online and in our "real life"? What impact does this have on education? In what way does ability come into play when we construct our online identities?

What is identity?

In an attempt to answer these questions, it is important to first understand the overall concept of identity. A standard dictionary definition reveals to us the following:

iden•ti•ty (I-'den(t)-&t-E, &-') noun, plural -ties

1. the distinguishing character or personality of an individual
2. the relation established by psychological identification

However, identity can actually be quite vague and difficult to grasp the essence of due to its complexity. Fearon (1999) describes this situation and offers how identity is viewed in the context of everyday life as well as social science research. He states that identity actually has two separate meanings, one pertaining to social identity and the other with personal identity: "Identity refers to either (a) a social category defined by membership rules and (alleged) characteristic attributes or expected behaviors, or (b) socially distinguishing features that a person takes a special pride in or views as unchangeable but socially consequential" (p. 2).

What is the mechanism by which we construct identity? According to Schopflin (2001), “identities are anchored around a set of moral propositions that regulate values and behaviour, so that identity construction necessarily involves ideas of right and wrong, desirable/undesirable, unpolluted/polluted etc.”

The following YouTube video demonstrates one video blogger's definition and explanation of identity:

What is ability?

a•bil•i•ty (ə-bĭl'ĭ-tē) noun, pl. a•bil•i•ties

1. The quality of being able to do something, especially the physical, mental, financial, or legal power to accomplish something.
2. A natural or acquired skill or talent.
3. The quality of being suitable for or receptive to a specified treatment; capacity: the ability of a computer to be configured for use as a file server.

How does the availability of an online world versus a face-to-face world affect our how we view our own abilities? Are disabilities less of a barrier than before? In the YouTube video entitled “A Second Life on Second Life”, video creator Alice Kreuger (avatar name Gentle Heron) takes viewers into the realm of Second Life, where she has set up a support community for people whose physical abilities are limited in real life to create real friendships and achieve things that would be impossible to do outside of the Second Life world. Kreuger envisions that technologies such as Second Life will enable people to visualize their dreams and leave their dysfunctional bodies behind.

The Changing Landscape of Identity & Ability

In less than twenty years, the social landscape of our world has undergone profound changes. Technological innovations have allowed for a change in the mechanism by which people interact with each other. When you enter the world of online interaction, you can choose who you want to be. For the most part, others will only know what you tell them, allowing you to choose what identity, or identities, you wish to reveal. How much of your true self you want others to see is within your control, making online interaction quite different from the face-to-face interactions that occur in daily life (Suler, 2002).

Educational Implications

Identity and ability are two entities that can have a significant impact on education. Especially for students, who are at the center of the educational system, but also for teachers, who must understand and be able to best use the information contained below and capture these opportunities for use in the classroom.

An interesting and important concept that must be kept in mind when discussing the interplay of on identity and ability in the realm of education. This is the fact that in online environments, one's physical body is not necessarily visible. Therefore, the skills students need to interpret situations and manage identity are different than what they deal with in their daily lives. Boyd (2007) speaks to this saying that when online, "people have more control online - they are able to carefully choose what information to put forward, thereby eliminating visceral reactions that might have seeped out in everyday communications" (p. 12).

Real Life Identities vs. Virtual Identities

Body vs. virtual self

What is Identity?

Identity is set of characteristics, such as personality, and appearance, which distinguishes an individual within a society. Identities are socially constructed like race and the internet, and are based on one’s life experience and are subject to change. Many researchers describe identity as a scale in which individuals have multiple identities in which they express some and repress others due to societal pressures. Social stigmas and norms affect what identities are expressed and repressed in individuals because of their desire to “fit in.” Virtual identities creates an avenue for individuals to explore and express their other identities otherwise repressed through creations of “avatars.” Bers (2001) states, “We live in a society where concepts of self, community and “what is right and wrong” are constantly changing. This makes it particularly challenging for young people to construct a sense of self and to identify their most cherished values” (366). Some scholars like Bers believe we should create identity construction environments (ICEs) created to support youth in learning different aspects of identity and the self (Bers, 2001). Features like Computer supported collaborative learning, human computer interaction, teaching more character education, civic or democratic education, education for multicultural understanding, exploring new technologies for personal, and social and moral development can assist youth in identity construction (Bers, 2001).

Embodiment

Embodiment refers to the experience one lives within his or her physical body. Face to face communications with individuals, touching and feeling other individuals, and the pressure to conform to others around you, are all characteristics of an embodiment experience. Though embodiment experience can feel personable many argue they have many limitations. An obvious limitation to embodiment experiences is that you’re limited to your physical body. Social relationships and communication are all done face to face which makes it difficult for some to be who they want to be or say what they truly want to say. Social pressures and stigmas are the cause of these difficulties and disembodiment provides an avenue for individuals to explore multiple identities without the social pressures that come with face to face contact.

Disembodiment

Disembodiment refers to the out of body experience created by virtual life. This out of body experience gives the ability to explore ones multiple identities. Disembodiment is a new avenue to explore the many complexities of individuals, where they can play out fantasies without fear of prejudice. Nakamura (2001) states, “Textual and graphical chatspaces encourage users to build different identities, to take on new nicknames and to describe themselves in any way they wish to appear” (p. 10). Some scholars disagree with the idea that this disembodiment protects them from social pressures or discrimination. “Despite claims by digital utopians that the internet is an ideally democratic, discrimination free space, a space without gender, race, age, disability and so on…will reveal that these identity positions are still very much in evidence” (Nakamura, p. 1). Nakamura continues to describe how there may not be any physical bodies present but things like “race has a way of asserting its presence in the languages users employ, in the kinds of identities they construct, and in the ways they depict themselves online both in language and pictures” (Nakamura, p. 1). People’s interests, culture, and life style are projected in what types of decisions they make online. Furthermore, race is created through avatars, instead of asking you what race you want to be like they do for gender most sites encourage users to “experiment” and chose a “color” that they like best (Nakamura, 2001). (For further exploration of race and gender see section on Perception and Representation.)

Virtual Life

In virtual life identities are integral aspects of the online world, as there is no physical presence of the user. Users are able to concentrate more on what they want rather than what they think other people want of them. Users are forced to concentrate on the content of other user’s writings rather than their physical characteristics. This separation gives the ability to alter ones identity, perspectives and interactions without the emotions and fear embodiment interactions create. For example; pretending to be someone of the opposite gender may be difficult for some to do in an embodiment experience but through virtual identities users are able to explore this identity through creating avatars. “Avatars or renditions of self, provides a pipeline into the phantasmic world of identities” (Nakamura, 2001, p. 11). Identities have changed over time; when the internet was text based users picked names of what they wanted to be, names like GeniusBoy and HotChick. Nakamura argues that current internet has placed text based identities on the backburner and through audio, video and jpeg images avatars have taken up these once invisible characteristics like race and disability (Nakamura, 2001).

Characteristics

Virtual identity in many ways is a postmodern way of knowing. Prior to the development of the internet individuals did not have a tool which gave them an avenue to explore their different identities, now “...these new technologies constitute not only a set of tools, but an environment - a space - a cyberspace, in which human interactions happen” (Burbules, p. 4). The ability to explore different environments and become many different selves, which are no different than the individuals “real self” have changed how we define and view identities. The postmodern way of defining ones identity takes in account that identities are ever changing characteristics of individuals shaped and molded by embodiment experiences and explored through disembodiment experiences. Kang (2000) states, “If we view cyberspace as a mere tool, like a glorified fax machine, we underestimates its transformative potential. We should see cyberspace instead as a new universe, which we build potentially without the constraints that bind real space” (p. 1208). In this new universe, we are reinventing what it means to experience “reality."

Some drawbacks to ones virtual identity is that an individual may began to see reality in the same way. Reality becomes what many virtual users call “Real Life” which is another role playing game. This can cause individuals to ignore the seriousness of reality assuming they can conveniently “start over” like in virtual worlds. Individuals can also become absorbed in virtual life in which their real life social networks are strained because of the excessive usage.

Traditional Model of Identity

The original model of identity pressures individuals to repress identities that are not social norms or do not relate to others around them. Turkle (1995) says that “The unitary self maintains its oneness by repressing all that does not fit. Thus censored, the illegitimate parts of the self are not accessible" (p. 9). As Turkle explains these difference are seen as illegitimate and individuals are unable to become their true identity/self or explore others.

Postmodern Identity

The postmodern identity model creates a safety net for individuals to explore different identities without the pressure to repress those they do not “fit.” The “illegitimate parts” are not social stigmatized through virtual communication so users are not pressured to repress certain beliefs or interest that they would in reality. "We do not feel compelled to rank or judge the elements of our multiplicity. We do not feel compelled to exclude what does not fit." (Turkle, 9) Virtual life gives the “self” the ability to live out its fantasies and explore parts of them never explored.

Fake vs. Real Identity

The idea of fake v. real identities refers to the two models of identity above. There are many different versions of one’s identity which are subject to change. Are these different versions of one’s identity fake or real? By exploring other identities that are unable to be explored in reality we find that these different identities are very much a part of the individuals that express them. If an individual pretends to be of a different gender some may see this as a fake identity but in reality this individual may have always wondered what it felt like to be the opposite gender and virtual life offers an avenue to explore that.

Reality vs. Simulation

Reality v. Simulation is there a difference? With technological advances we are trying to create realistic simulations that are controlled, in an attempt to recreate a realistic world. Creating simulated reality pressures individuals to rethink what reality actually is. With simulations becoming more like reality it is becoming difficult to tell the two apart. We are also using technology to give us control of reality like we have control over simulations, in order to see reality as a simulation. Creating simulations that seem real and making reality more like a simulation blur the lines which makes many believe that they're not that different after all. Simulation can affect reality and vice versa. A study a Standford University explains how subjects that saw their avatar burning calories virtually were more motivated to workout in reality. This study suggests that avatars can be used to motivate people to participate in favored activities.

Are they really crazy?

Virtual identities allow people to be who they want to be, so if someone favors their virtual identity better than their real life identity and becomes absorbed are they really crazy? Most people believe that people as such have problems and see them as crazy. Like anybody these individuals do have problems but many believe it’s not the usage. With simulation becoming more like reality and reality becoming more like simulation these individuals are able to live the life they always wanted. Using massively multi player role playing games (MMPRPG) you can be who you want to be. Some examples of online worlds/communities consist of Second Life and World of Warcraft. The role playing games and worlds offer the opportunity for individuals to meet, socialize and do what they want to do just like in reality but many times with more options and flexibility.

Are they addicts? Many virtual world/community users understand the real world effects but still choose to participate. These individuals come to enjoy their virtual lives more and never want it to end. This can be seen as a form of self medication to deal with real world problems. Do they choose a better life? Many gamers don’t ever want to quit; others make them. The reason for this is that it brings them greater pleasure so they see no reason to quit playing. There is a misconception that virtual gamers are lonely people in their basements; however, they talk to people all day -- they just resemble wizards and elves. Virtual gamers become absorbed in these worlds because they experience little pain, great adventure, and large rewards, something all humans seek in life.

Education

Virtual identities affect students in both positive and negative ways. Some pros are that virtual identities can be distant and impersonal; this allows students to be themselves and to find other individuals around the world with similar interest to explore their shared identities together. Also students can remain relatively anonymous which is good for safety issues as well as for discussion purposes. Students tend to participate more and become more engaged in the material with more student teacher interaction. Students are pressured to be more independently motivated and have more time to reflect on text rather than continuous conversation in which few students can dominate the entire conversation. Most importantly the international context of the internet allows for greater diversity in the classroom which brings greater exposure and well rounded arguments.

One con to virtual education is that online education is stigmatized to be used for specific purposes or for certain types of people. These certain “types” of people are seen as unfit or illegitimate for in-class education. Another conflict that arises from virtual classrooms are access issues, you must have a computer and internet access in order to participate within an online classroom. Internet accesses for whites and Asians in the U.S. are double that of African Americans and Latino Americans it is also higher in urban areas as opposed to rural (Warf, 1997). Considering that one needs a certain income to participate in a virtual classroom internet access maybe viewed as a status indicator. Finally, embodied engagements can be seen as a con to some but a pro to many others. Virtual classrooms can be seen as a con because the users are not physically together in person and can create an environment that is informal and disconnected, however telepresence is preferred by many minorities, women, and individuals with disabilities that are otherwise discriminated against.

Integration in youth culture

Youth culture

Technologies are geared toward the youth culture and have become much a part of their daily lives: “In 1995, one in seven Americans was online, in 2005 two of every three Americans were online” (Monroe, 2006, p. 214). Video games have had a large impact on youth culture and continue to grow. Most virtual games are made to be addictive and require long hours of commitment in order to make their world function efficiently encouraging continuous hours of engagement. Youth are able to create avatars and explore different identities through social interactions with other users that are present in the virtual community. Outside of virtual gaming there are many social sites geared toward youth culture where different forms of multiliteracies are expressed in chat rooms, blogs, and other social platforms like twitter.

Youth are exposed to the internet throughout the majority of their day; at home, school and the workplace. Youth are absorbed in this network for the majority of their time because they want and need to be competitive in order to participate in today’s world. Pop culture has marketed to youth culture making internet usage a social norm in today’s society. The growing dependency and broad access have created addiction and over reliance whose symptoms are similar to other addictions and over usages.

The integration in youth culture with encouraged usage has caused a new trend of youth abusing technology. Cyberbullying like bullying is when an online user begins to harass other users or a specific user in order to intimidate them. New values and boundaries are needed because the law has not caught up with technology, making it difficult to regulate.

Digital natives vs. Digital Immigrants

Digital natives

Digital native refers to the youth culture and the idea that they were born into the technology era. Today’s youth grow up playing with computer/internet, cell phones, and other technological devices since birth and are fully absorbed within this new culture. The use of technology has become a new way of knowing or thinking in which youth culture has the privilege to begin their knowledge seeking without “old fashioned” ways of knowing. These youth “think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors” (Presnsky, 2001, p. 2). To put it into perspective, IBM was the first personal computer created for everyday users in 1981. In 1983 Mac came out with “Lisa,” a project which included a mouse, drop down menus and games. Computers have been available to the average person for a little of twenty five years in which older generations has had to make a conscious effort to learn this new form of language and way of thinking that is a foreign concept to them. Today there are multiple devices that have become a part of youth culture such as; cell phones, iPods, email, video games, web cams etc.

How natives think

Digital Natives are used to receiving information really fast. Prior, information gathering was a long tedious process that required long hours and many trips to the library. Today users can search and find a variety of different items from research articles to odd facts all at their finger tips. Natives like to perform multiple tasks simultaneously. The computer provides an avenue in which users can do multiple things at once saving time and effort. Natives prefer visuals and audio over text. The change from textual learning to visual and audio has made learning fun to many natives. Instead of reading a book youth can now have someone read it to them or watch a review and take part in a discussion where they can gather many different perspectives acquiring a better understanding of the material. They prefer working in collaborative groups which is good because the greater exposure of diverse ideas creates a well rounded argument and increased knowledge of the material. Natives also like the randomness of exploring on the internet. The internet is very democratic in which users can search and participate in things they are personally interested in. Exploration has become easier and more efficient users can visit another country with just a click of a button. Natives prefer games over serious work and require frequent incentive and reward.

Digital immigrants

Digital immigrants refer to the older culture and the idea that technology to them is foreign and like immigrants must become familiar with their new culture. Many digital immigrants are forced into the culture of technology and have no choice but to become familiar with its many uses in order to keep up with a changing world. Digital immigrants are used to traditional activities such as reading the newspaper and handwriting documents. They are comfortable with these traditional activities because it is what they have done their entire life and are now expected to change their way of knowing.

How immigrants think

Digital Immigrants are less comfortable with technology and this is demonstrated through their actions. Many times digital immigrants are forced to use technology against their will and use it in different ways then digital natives would. Instead of editing text on the computer many immigrants will print out the document and then edit it by hand and make the corrections manually. These immigrants are not familiar or comfortable with the technology but have to use it so they learn enough to survive but in turn may not understand its true potential.

Education

Incorporating new technologies as way to stay current and to become more efficient in education has proven to be a challenge for many teachers: “New technologies in education have become an educational issue, a challenge, an opportunity, a risk, a necessity, all of these for reasons that have little to do with willful choices made by educators” (Burbules, p. 2). Burbules quote explains how many of these changes are made without the consent of educators many times because of their inexperience with technology. Presnksy explains how “our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach” (Presnky, 2001, p. 1). Current youth know more about the many uses of technology than teachers. In order for educators to become more comfortable with the culture of technology as a way of knowing they need to have random and frequent access. Aside from educators becoming more familiar with the technology another issues is that it is expensive to implement, update, and maintain the latest technology in schools. Improvements in technology happen daily and in order to stay current with the latest technology it can become very expensive.

Need for new teaching techniques

As new media technology changes how we think of social networking and education it becomes important to rethink the role of the “teacher” in academic settings: “It [technology] has also transformed the way we learn, as distance learning opportunities increase to include everything from job training to college degrees, Why then has not technology substantively changed the way we teach in physical K-12 schools?” (Monroe, 2006, p. 218)

Bennett (2008) states, “It is also argued that educational institutions on all levels are rapidly becoming outdated and irrelevant, and that there is urgent need to change what is taught and how” (p. 216). Current teachings require teachers to be the source of knowledge rather than a facilitator. This becomes an issue because teachers do not know everything and the knowledge they do know is limited to one point of view. Today’s technology has the ability to reinvent the traditional form of education and use technology to expand learning outside of school hours and walls. New programs like “WebQuest” developed models that allow teachers to create a contextualized Web-based lesson for students, and “CoVis” a "collaborative visualization tool" that helps students understand complex weather pattern. From generic to specific, new programs are being developed to aid both educators and students in an attempt to reinvent how we think of academic education for future generations to follow. New technology has provided the opportunity for distant education beyond the confines of one’s home country. Current youth have lost a sense of “national identity” due to a global presence because of the internet. The internet is an environment that provides the opportunity for users to communicate anywhere in the world real time, expanding opportunities for international communication and education.

Convergence of the Physical and Digital Realms of Identity

Cloak of anonymity

The "cloak of anonymity" represents another critical aspect when considering the difference between real and online identities in the area of education. From early on in the development of the internet, proponents hyped the idea that the internet would finally free us from our physical selves and help to create a utopian world in which stereotypes failed to cloak our interpretations and perceptions. While the outcome of this hypothesis is, at least at this time, debatable, the prospect of working anonymously online certainly presents implications that should be considered from an educational perspective. This section will begin with a brief overview of the cloak of anonymity, which will be followed by anonymity’s educational implications.

Overview of the cloak of anonymity

A tremendous amount of research has been done in the area of online anonymity, and much of the work can be divided into a few general categories: the individual’s desire to be anonymous online, the system’s efforts to foster that anonymity, and the general desire for anonymity to lead to greater social harmony. Following will be brief analysis of each category.

Clearly, there are numerous and varied reasons that an individual may desire to be anonymous and the coming of the internet provided the perfect venue for fostering this desire. Teich, Frankel, Kling, and Lee (1999) note that one of the internet’s main appeals over time has been its ability to keep patrons anonymity and allow them to engage in a variety of activities (activities that could be considered both morally appropriate and inappropriate) without fear of, “detection, retribution, or embarrassment” (p. 71). The simple fact is that there are many reasons that any one of us would like to be perceived differently than we feel from time to time (previous points regarding how we shift our online identities with avatars comes to mind as an example) and the cloak of anonymity allows us to shift that identity in a very safe venue. Blogs represent perfect examples of this venue in which individuals can freely and openly express their views anonymously.

Of course this desire for anonymity also leads to fear that some are choosing it solely to conduct the previously mentioned immoral (and possibly dangerous) acts. In 2007 Rick Simmons noted that technology is constantly working to support individual privacy. Ultimately a balance must be struck between personal privacy requirements guaranteed by the fourth amendment and law enforcement needs. This balance becomes harder and harder to maintain as technology improves and anxiety levels rise with fears of terrorism. Gray (2008) notes another drawback of this anonymity by demonstrating how this anonymity can protect members of online communities who chose to be disrespectful or offensive. Clearly, there is a fundamental importance in finding the appropriate balance.

In addition to each individual’s desire to be anonymous online, a general belief in the harmony created by anonymity revolves around the internet. This desire is well described by Megan Boler (2007) in her article about digital Cartisianism, in which she notes that proponents of the internet’s powers of anonymity expound upon their belief that online communication can, “achieve Descartes’ dream of ‘pure minds’ and transcendence of body” (p. 139). Those with liberal and neo-liberal outlooks have regularly searched for the utopian, egalitarian environment in which there would be no prejudgments or assumptions made about a person’s character based upon racial or class status and this venue seems, to many, to represent just such an environment. There are certainly questions regarding the legitimacy of this belief and its application to the internet, and yet it certainly represents a compelling argument in support of anonymity on the internet.

As the individual’s desire for anonymity continued to mesh with that of the larger utopian ideal internet purveyors and entrepreneurs worked to build a system that would support such desires. In turn, various technologies have emerged that support and foster this anonymity. Privacy-Enhancing Technology, or PET, represents one such technology that presents the technical answers to social and legal privacy requirements (Hansen, 2004, p. 35). Programs like I2P and TOR represent offshoots of PET and provide internet users varied and diverse methods for masking their identity (again, possibly for either moral or immoral reasons).

Ultimately it would seem that everyone wants anonymity for themselves at certain times and anonymity for others at different times; begging the question as to what motives could lie behind anyone’s desires for anonymity. It would seem that the constant struggle for finding a balance between these two camps is here to stay.

Educational implications

There are certainly multiple educational implications of the anonymity that online identities provide users. In one respect, the cloak of anonymity provides students the opportunity to take part in educational experiences that allow them to shift their own worldviews. For example, a generally shy person may take the opportunity in an online class of leading a group, or a person that finds her/himself leading people in day to day life may enjoy the opportunity of letting someone lease in an online class situation. Providing students with a safe place to try out different roles is a key strength of online identity formation in an educational setting.

In addition, the anonymity of online identities can allow students to make arguments, support claims, and take stands that would be harder and more dangerous in a face to face relationship or conversation. This has certainly seemed to be the case for members of EPS 415 in both our synchronous and asynchronous discussions.

Online anonymity also provides the opportunity for learners to free themselves of stereotypes that their peers, or even their teachers, could hold against them. This anonymity could furthermore allow them to let go of stereotypes that they may hold about others. In turn, this anonymity could actually help to foster more diverse relationships as barriers are broken down by people who would not have normally connected or who would not have had the opportunity to work together. This being said it is incumbent upon the educator to ensure that diversity is understood and accepting amongst anonymous online learners who could either end up in very homogenous groups based upon beliefs and experiences or who could perceive no diversity amongst his or peers and thus, fail to accept it.

It is also important for educators to keep the learner at the forefront and to keep the learners relative anonymity from devolving into a less fruitful learning environment. This could happen for a few reasons. In one sense, it is clear from an educational perspective that strong relationships are critical to successful education of students, especially with younger children, and that relationship piece must not be lost in an anonymous environment. Additionally, it is important that the students’ relative anonymity doesn’t allow mischief to take place. In a classroom, the teacher would know if a different person took a test for his buddy. This would be much harder to determine and much harder to prove in an anonymous online environment and educators must guard against this.

Ultimately, as with so much of what we must do as educators, we must take the good with bad and ensure that our students are receiving the best opportunities while we are simultaneously protecting them from the pitfalls that come along with the good. An inherent irony exists here that educators must never forget; the anonymity that technology provides can free us in such a way as to allow us to truly find new parts of ourselves.

If teachers can harness this, we will truly be able to make important, fundamental changes in our educational system.

Perception and Representation

Overview

The issues of “real life identity," “virtual identity,” and anonymity, as outlined above become further complicated when identity is considered in terms of race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or other categories or groups to which people belong or with which they identify, especially those with a history of identity politics. The categories listed here are widely debated topics even outside of the online world, particularly considering liberation movements; power dynamics in society and conceptions of societal structure in general; social construction, constructivism, and essentialism; and prejudice and discrimination. In addition, these categories hold many implications for educational theory, pedagogy, curriculum, and student support.

While each category has some particularities when considered in an online identity context, several themes unite them. Fundamentally research, scholarship, and personal experiences present conflicting ideas about both the value in and the problems of how we categorize people in an online context. In many respects, the anonymity and ability to “choose” identity that the internet affords can give freedom from these categories and a place to safely explore them, a sense of safety and voice to certain categorized individuals, and a promise of that modern utopia, a “colorblind” (or gender-, class-, or orientation- blind) society; however, the same anonymity and apparent “choice” may actually be quite constrictive, misleading, or even destructive, especially when it exists in the internet’s assumptions about culture: that is, white, male, heterosexuality is normative unless in a space designated otherwise.

These conflicts are central to exploring identity categories online. Atkinson and Depalma (2007), in discussing discourses related to gender and sexuality identity online, bring together these conflicts succinctly. In agreement with above sections on identity, they see the benefits of the potential for recreating the self online; however, they also note:

“There have been some conflicting contributions to the literature, however, concerning marginalized identities and online discussions. There has been a great deal of debate as to whether online communities and discussions are, have been, or could ever be ‘safe spaces’; a debate which defines safely [sic] in terms of support and acceptance (particularly for marginalized people) and a lack of safety in terms of verbally expressed hatred and abuse” (Atkinson & DePalma, 2007, p. 184).

Atkinson and DePalma clearly indicate that the internet is not safe for “marginalized identities”; in addition, many sources point towards both the continuation and reinforcement of societal strictures online, even when participants are anonymous. They argue that both identity – who one is allowed to be – and discourse – what one is allowed to say – are societal forces that cannot be overcome just by a different kind of forum, and that individuals on the internet often “re-embody themselves, consciously or unconsciously, in ways that invoke social meanings and effectively import socially constructed power asymmetries into the virtual space” (Atkinson & DePalma, 2007, pp. 191-192). Further, while anonymity can sometimes prove beneficial, and some researchers have found evidence of minority identity participants in online education being able to find their voice and speak in ways they had not in a face-to-face classroom (Sullivan, 2002), others argue the opposite: “It appears that anonymity can bolster group normative behaviour, enhancing the potential for the expression of prejudice or discrimination if it is a group norm” (Amichai-Hamburger, 2005, citing Postmes 2001, p. 251). The idea of “safe space” is very useful in constructing some restricted online communities; however, it can also be contradicted when “safe” means that certain topics or issues are understood as not to be brought up, especially those related to minority identities (Mayo ,2002).

Such general arguments can be applied to the particulars of race, gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation, which then lead to the implications for education. In addition, given much of the research on multicultural education, the importance of what author Adrienne Rich calls “the politics of location,” and possible differences in the construction of knowledge among different cultural groups, the implications of these categories for education in the age of the internet must be carefully considered, and theories of multicultural education must cross paths with ideas about identity on the internet.

Race

Early thinking on race and the internet was that the virtual world would be able to be one where race truly did not matter. The utopian vision of the internet was of a place where no one could know -- or needed to know -- any visually identifying markers of the people with whom they were interacting: " 'What seemed liberating at first about the Internet is that people couldn't categorize you' based on race" (Young 2001). Advertising for the net (and telecommunications in general) showed pictures of many different people of many different nationalities and races, and then proceeded to effectively erase those distances (Young 2001, Boler 2007).

However, scholars quickly questioned these assumptions. First, participant anonymity indeed can prove to be liberating; however, it liberates individuals not only to express positive or neutral ideas, but to express racist and offensive ideas with impunity, and “conflict and racial prejudice are prevalent aspects of online interaction” (Tynes, 2007, p. 1313). (For an example, see deMontes, Oran, and Willis’s study of ethnicity interactions in online courses, 2002.) Racism may express itself more subtly in the continuation of stereotypes of identity. Free to choose an identity and a body that they have no lived experience in, people may use that identity to act out the stereotypes associated with a race or ethnicity. Boler (2007) argues that, despite the absence of the body in online interactions, “the actualities of how users interpret and derive meaning from text-based communication often involve reductive bodily markers that re-invoke stereotypes of racialized, sexualized, and gendered bodies….Users frequently rely on stereotyped images and descriptions of bodies in order to confer authenticity and signification to textual utterances” (p. 139).

Second, as in much of Western culture, there is a normative assumption of whiteness online. Unless participants identify themselves as something else, or unless they are in a forum specifically designated for people of color, they are assumed to be white (Young 2001). Much of the "culture" of technology -- from Bill Gates and Steve Jobs to "faceless" hackers -- presents an image of (male) whiteness that is carried over as the norm on the internet. A striking recent example serves to further illustrate this point: in a recent version of Dell's factory-installed laptop webcam, five different avatars appear as the default choices that people may substitute for their own image in a video chat. The avatars are almost all non-human: a cat, a dog, an extra-terrestrial alien, a very cartoony Marilyn Mason/Johnny Depp figure -- and a fairly "realistic" (though animated) young black man in a hoodie. The striking realness of this last figure, contrasted with the others, may serve to underline that point that, in the world of video chat, "young black man" is just another persona, something the user could never be, like a fluffy white cat.

Third, the issue of identity politics becomes important in discussions of race online. While some maintain that identifying characteristics such as race should not matter, many people believe that these markers are an important part of understanding each other and where people are rooting their ideas and values (Rich, 1984). Online, in most cases, if race is not asserted directly, it is assumed to be white, and in many cases, people of color are often seen as passive, not active players in technology: "When attention is turned to the implications of race for theorizing technology, people of color are cast as victims....And historically people of color have been casualties of technologically enabled systems of oppression, from colonial expansion, to the racial sciences of craniology and phrenology, to surveillance and information gathering" (Nelson, Tu, Hines, 2001, p. 3).

Despite these negative aspects of how race and race relations play out online, the story is not all negative, and in fact, a more tempered optimism speaks in some recent writings about race and online identity, particularly among young people. Nelson et al. (2001), in the introduction to Technicolor: Race, Technology, and Everyday Life, write that "for disadvantaged communities, technologies have been used to address historical exclusions and continuing inequalities -- sometimes to offer more democratic alternatives, other times to manufacture profit, most often to simply fill a need" (p. 5). Likewise, Brendesha Tynes's study of race and ethnicity in online classrooms (2007) suggests that adolescents are engaging in vital dialogue about race in these contexts: "Despite the fact that conflict and racial prejudice are prevalent aspects of online interaction, extant research has shown that more structured, facilitated online dialogue can produce significant gains in content knowledge about various ethnic and racial groups" (p. 1313). In addition, as with other minority identities, internet can be used to facilitate true community building.

Gender

The issue of gender online has primarily been explored in terms of women’s comfort and participation, using an understanding of female as a “minority” or marginalized status. As with race, there was much hype in early thinking about the internet that it would provide an egalitarian field for women to speak their minds and not be constrained by traditional social mores. In some research, these hopes are borne out; Patrick Sullivan (2002), in a study of women taking online college classes, found that the majority of them found the environment countered their experiences in traditional classrooms of feeling voiceless and disempowered. He writes that “the relative anonymity of the networked classroom changes the social dynamics of the learning environment in powerful and unique ways and that this is an additional aspect of the online environment that female college students appear to find appealing as well” (p. 130). Further, he cites his research subjects’ identification of anonymity as the “key element” in their enjoyment of online learning and that this anonymity was in fact “the most important positive aspect of the online environment“(p. 132, 138) He quotes two key students, who examine their own experiences:

Quoting “Shelly”: “Some of the students in my class this semester, in my opinion, are brilliant writers, and I could tell you if they are male or female, but almost no other physical characteristics about them. There is no stereotyping or bias amongst the students here and no opportunity for bias by a teacher” (p. 139).

Quoting “Gayla”: “I think the anonymity of the online classroom makes it more comfortable than a traditional classroom setting. I honestly don’t know if that favors one gender over the other or not. I really think that it boils down to the simple fact that it’s easier to be yourself if you’re ‘invisible’” (p. 139).

Clearly, the eighteen students who responded favorably to Sullivan’s study did feel that the online nature of their education created an environment in which they could learn better. He concludes that “these data support other research which suggests that female students, and students who may be reserved or socially marginalized, find this unique social environment very appealing” (p. 142).

However, other research contradicts these findings. Some argue that the idea of anonymity leads to assumptions about individuals that may not be true, especially in that those assumptions relate to normative culture. “Invisibility,” cited by the second subject, is not always seen as positive. Interestingly, the first subject even says that she “could tell you if [participants] are male or female”; while in this case she does not believe that this leads to bias, other research on male and female discourse shows that men’s and women’s ways of speaking and interacting can both feed into and be influenced by social norms. If even on the internet one is able to identify these gendered discourses, by extension some cultural restrictions are sure to follow. Along these lines, Susan Hum’s study of an online learning environment (2002) in many ways directly contradicts Sullivan’s findings:

“Many educators assume that the Internet encourages egalitarian interaction, allowing participants to control, through language, how they are perceived....Based on a classroom study of online male and female interaction, I conclude that conventional gendered linguistic strategies in student collaboration are replicated in online environments. These findings counter the early beliefs and assumptions about the democratizing potential of cyber-technology” (p. 19).

Gender Identity and Sexual orientation

The issues of gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation are simultaneously separate and interconnected in forming identity -- on the web just as they are in non-virtual life. However, the possibilities for anonymity and assumption of other identities, as discussed above, afford greater liberty for individuals to “try out” different gender roles, gender identities, and sexual orientations than they may feel they can in real life; in addition, many spaces on the internet allow for an ambiguity, fluidity, and hybridity of gender and sexuality that is generally less visible – and less tolerated – offline. Many vibrant and supportive communities for these marginalized identities exist online, which has proved particularly valuable for individuals in more isolated communities, particularly young people. On the other hand, questions remain about how “safe” the internet actually is, and if the performance of gender and sexuality in an online setting is really less restrictive than in a non-virtual one. In addition, the need for individuals to self-identify as LBGT, “queer,” or outside of the gender binary, may in fact reinforce societal boundaries or the need to “come out” (or have people assume they are heterosexual) that these individuals face in real life; “In fact, the lack of explicit identity markers may actually serve to exacerbate the alienation and silencing of ‘the other’ because in the absence of information the default, unmarked categories are simply assumed (Bowers 2000; Kolko 2000)” (Atkinson & DePalma, 2007, p. 185).

Many argue that the normative assumption online is of heterosexuality, and that in most public online spaces participants are expected to be heterosexual and to have a fixed gender that adheres to cultural norms. Lori Kendall (2002), who both observed and participated in MUDs and other participatory interfaces, notes, “The question ‘are you male or female?’ has gained legendary status among members of various online cultures and appears frequently in mud areas where newbies are likely to congregate. In such areas, it is often the first question asked of another participant” (p. 121). Her description here is neutral, but in further exploration of her experiences it is clear that participants in some ways “need” to know the gender of others so that they can interact with them in a culturally appropriate way, including flirting and sexually suggestive behavior. She describes the “connection of gender switching with confusion of social mores” (p. 124) in these online communities, further demonstrating that, in many virtual spaces, there is an assumption that gender is fixed, observable, and “real,” just as many assume it is in real life. (Certainly, many question these assumptions in both the virtual and non-virtual spheres, but the fact remains that much of the gender binary goes unquestioned in the general culture.) She also notes the heteronormative online culture, citing an incident where participants assumed an individual was female based on that individual mentioning a “boyfriend” (p. 120).

Further, as with race and gender, while the internet is often constructed as a “safe space” for minority sexualities and gender identification, this assumption does not always play out, and in fact some see this idea as oversimplifying or making further invisible the struggles of these marginalized communities. Some researchers also cite the lack of research on minority sexualities online as furthering the silence around these issues (Atkinson & DePalma, 2007, p. 185). For example, in an online community explicitly created to discuss issues of sexual orientation in schools, Atkinson and DePalma (2006, 2007) found that, despite their explicit connection of the forum with an LBGT-positive project, participants did not seem to feel free to connect their ideas about their own minority sexuality status, and in fact some participants continued to present prejudiced or anti-gay sentiments and constructs. As an example, one participant who identified as a gay male but who defied stereotypes about gay men in many of his statements was effectively shut out of the conversation, leading the researchers to conclude “that the space we created for safety was actually quite permeable to the assumptions and limitations that restrict marginalized identities in broader society” (Atkinson & DePalma, 2007, p. 188).

Moreover, because of the possibility for anonymous prejudice, sometimes great hatred is expressed online. In many offline spaces, prejudice against LBGTQ and gender variant people is still acceptable even in the open; even more so, the internet provides a place to hide for those who may attack them. One blogger, Danah Boyd (2004), writes about her experiences with this harassment and negativity: “In 2001, i [sic] popped into various queer communities, talking to youth about their experiences online. They recalled stories that horrified me. Stories of older men preying on them, stories of the Christian right telling them they were going to hell. [The youth were] always on the search for safe space….” Boyd also expresses a sense of despair over the ability of the internet to ever overcome its inability to actually be safe: “online, speaking to your attackers is like speaking to a blank wall. You can’t possibly defend yourself because they’re against you at their very core. Topics like queer identity … will never go anywhere online. People aren’t willing to hear one another.” This experience is one person’s, not the result of general research, but Boyd’s experiences echo those of the youth she talked to and of her own community; the question of anonymity and safe space is one that must be continually considered.

While “there is not yet evidence that the majority of users inhabiting online spaces represent a demographics of democracy, much less a population who share ‘queered’ understandings of the relationship of sex to gender” (Boler, 2007, p. 157), there is much evidence of vibrant, safe, and supportive communities for LBGTQ and gender variant people on the web. For example, LiveJournal (LJ), a social network, hosts many communities that are self-regulating, monitored by volunteers, and focused on vital topics to minority sexualities; they are often both supportive and celebratory, a place where individuals of all ages can find people like them who have been through similar experiences and who can provide advice, guidance, or empathy. For example, a simple search for the term "queer" in LJ communities returns a long list of possible groups. These kinds of communities often post explicit rules about the kids of postings that can occur and the kinds of behavior and discourse that will be removed or will result in the banning of the poster. These spaces are semi-public, letting anyone in, but are not designed as spaces for general or public discourse; rather, they are controlled meeting places for individuals who are looking for community. The spaces on LiveJournal and other such networks create communities of support and visibility for minority sexualities, especially for some isolated young people, who before the internet might not have known another person who was gay, or known that there were other transgender individuals who felt like them, for example. Even Boyd (2004) notes “that kids are finding new ways to construct semi-public safe space and support one another through the process of grappling with one’s identity.” In this way, some spaces on the internet provide a vital and positive new forum for identity development and discovery. While the idea of a blanket “safe space” may be overidealized, there are good aspects of marginalized identity development on the internet as well.

Minority/Marginalized Identity and Implications for Education

Consideration of how the factors above might play into education must include current theories of multicultural education. According to James Banks (2001), a prominent theorist in multicultural education, the field is concerned with changing the structures and norms of schools “so that students from diverse racial, ethnic, and social groups will experience educational equality” (p. 3). He also includes gender as an identity to be considered, and, while he does not explicitly mention it, sexual orientation should be included in this list of potential influences on education because of its similar minority status to gender and race. Banks argues that changes need to be made to schools, not only in curriculum, but in “teaching and learning styles; the attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors of teachers and administrators; and in the goals, norms, and culture of the school” (p. 3). Given substantial and vital information about identity on the internet, and knowing how strongly technology influences and guides young people today, it is critical that schools consider multicultural education not just for its own sake but also in the context of minority identity on the internet. Considering both technology – both positive and negative – and principles of multicultural education together is essential for truly changing schools to meet the needs of all students, but but especially those who by virtue of race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation are marginalized in some way.

Education, Knowledge, and Creativity

Banks further emphasizes the ways culture or experience influences schooling: "In the Western empirical tradition, the ideal within each academic discipline is the formulation of knowledge without the influence of the researchers' personal or cultural characteristics (Myrdal, 1969). However, as critical theorists, scholars of color, and feminist scholars have pointed out, personal, cultural, and social factors influence the formulation of knowledge even when objective knowledge is the ideal within a discipline (Banks, 1996; Code, 1991; Collins, 1998)" (p. 9). His view is substantiated by a body of work by other multicultural educators such as Peggy McIntosh, Lisa Delpit, Paul Kivel, and Beverly Daniel Tatum, work which emphasizes the importance of personal experience in the creation of knowledge. Adrienne Rich writes in “Notes on a Politics of Location” that all viewpoints must be considered in understanding what we learn, not just those viewpoints that have traditionally been handed down.

In this video, student Tejwattie B. clearly highlights the importance of her identity to her educational experiences. This individual story presents a vivid picture of the critical nature identity can play in an educational setting.

While Tejwattie speaks of her "real" classroom experiences, these issues are sure to exist in the virtual world as well. David Weinberger (2004) presents the idea that the internet itself is changing the way that we think. If this is true – and it seems likely – then how does this new thinking intersect with the idea that our social factors and background (our identity) also influence our knowledge construction? Surely there is research here that needs to be done; however, one possible way forward is for educators (and educational structures) to rethink thinking altogether. A response to both Weinberger and Banks would be to understand that students need new ways of expressing and discovering knowledge, new ways that include minority or marginalized viewpoints in radical ways that they have not been included in the past.

One such possibility exists in the juxtaposition of knowledge and creativity or play. This is certainly not a traditional view of knowledge, but it may be one that is afforded by examining the best aspects of how minority identity can develop on the internet. Citing Turkle, Burbules (2002) writes, “the Internet is a zone of enormous creativity and experimentation. Decoupled from the apparent one-to-one association of body and identity, participants online are exploring identities, perspectives, and modes of interaction that are not constrained by their ‘actual’ selves: pretending to be a character of the opposite gender in a chat room; putting out provocative opinions that are not necessarily one's own, just to see where the discussion will take them; playing with virtual interactions that do not have the consequences of such activities in the ‘real world.’ Turkle reports that for many of her subjects, and for herself, these can be tremendously liberating experiments” (para. 4). Such a “zone of enormous creativity and experimentation” could prove to be extremely beneficial to education and to knowledge construction, particularly if it is intentionally inclusive of the experiences and knowledge of minority identities.

The Global School – Respect and Community

With technology, schools are becoming increasingly globalized. The formation of students’ minority or marginalized identities cannot be overlooked when increasing numbers of viewpoints will converge in a classroom setting: "We must see the Internet as a new social environment in which universal adolescent issues such as identity, sexuality, and a sense of self-worth are played out in a virtual world in ways that are both new and old" (Greenfield and Yan, 2006, p. 392). The globalization of education – and of students’ identities – can be productive and generative if schools make a conscious and informed effort to create spaces where this can happen. Indeed, Burbules (2002) argues that “educationally, it can be extremely useful to have the distance and impersonality that online interactions afford. Some students speak up more under such circumstances” (para. 6). This can certainly be true of minority identity students, especially those who may feel they have no voice under a face-to-face setting. Additionally, Boler (2007) emphasizes cyberculture’s “potential for challenging notions of fixed and static identities, for fluidity of identity through gender play and an escape from binaries” (p. 149). Such a challenge could provide some students with the freedom they need to construct knowledge in a way that is real for them.

Banks (2001) further places some structure on student interaction that can guide new thinking about student identity in the virtual world as well as the “real” one: "Within the last three decades a number of researchers have studied the effects of cooperative learning on the academic achievements and racial attitudes of students from different racial and ethnic groups....Allport hypothesized that prejudice would be reduced if interracial contact situations have the following characteristics: 1. They are cooperative rather than competitive. 2. The individuals experience equal status. 3. The individuals have shared goals. 4. The contact is sanctioned by authorities such as parents, the principal, and the teacher" (p. 11). The idea of cooperative, equal learning, with shared goals, is something that the internet does have the potential to help foster.

However, being too rosy about the internet’s potential leads to a familiar trap. Schools, teachers, and students, must be willing to acknowledge true experience and the reality of marginalized identities, even if this reality is uncomfortable or “uncivilized”: “Mayo points out that the very processes civilized discourse that should welcome participation of marginalized people can actively push them out by invoking an understood consensus of what is and is not talked about” (Atkinson & DePalma, 2007, p. 191). The more contentious an issue is, the more likely that traditional societal structures of what is considered appropriate will be invoked, whether the situation is face-to-face or virtual. The issues of race, gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation are still fraught in general society, and as demonstrated above there is still often an assumption of normative culture in the supposedly freer world of the internet. There can be “a sort of tacit agreement to avoid ‘speaking the unpleasant’ (Chavez & O’Donnell, 1998)” (Atkinson & DePalma, 2006, p. 345). Creation of true community and “thick respect” (Pudner, 2007) will require breaking this “tacit agreement” to engage in these issues, and it must be done in a way that includes rather than excludes marginalized students. Boler (2007) addresses this issue when she asks, “given the aims of pedagogies of discomfort…, of learning to witness rather than spectate in order to understand the social responsibilities inherent to seeing differently, what is the cost of replacing discomfort with the convenience of anonymity?” (p. 143)

Sexuality and gender-variant identity present perhaps the most difficult challenges for education: “Despite its importance in terms of pupil and teacher well-being, sexualities equality remains the one area of inclusion still largely unaddressed in schools, often because of teachers’ own fears and concerns. This silence is often echoed by a prevailing view in the public arena that sexual orientation – including diverse family patterns – is not an appropriate focus for education, in spite of significant evidence demonstrating continuing disadvantage for non-heterosexual pupils and teachers” (Atkinson & DePalma, 2006, p. 333). This cultural prejudice, because it is still accepted in general, will continue to pervade both schools and online environments. It seems likely that there are things to be learned about how to support students of diverse sexualities and genders by looking at the supportive spaces of some social networks; however, learning still needs to be done about sexualities, the internet, and schools.

Educators must proceed with an understanding not only of the possibilities joining multicultural education and technology, but of the pitfalls as well. Mere inclusion in the curriculum of a few famous people in these categories will not probably cause much stir, but this may not get to important change either. Banks (2001) states that “Research indicates the teachers can increase the classroom participation and academic achievement of students from different ethnic and cultural groups by modifying their instruction so that it draws on their cultural and language strengths”(p. 13). However, how does one include the experiences of minority students without making them feel hyper-visible? Atkinson and DePalma (2006, quoting Patai) argue that, online, “‘There seems no middle ground for “Others” to inhabit: They are forced to choose between invisibility and surplus visibility, between silence and the accusation that they are making excessive noise. Surplus visibility reinforces the invisibility imposed on the marginalized by making it safer to go one’s own way quietly, without calling attention to oneself'” (p. 342). This applies to “real life” no less than virtual life. And while many view the potential for anonymity as freeing to students, there are also potentials for prejudice and harassment; teachers must be prepared to address these potentials or incidents if they wish to create just schools and classrooms. The way forward is not tidy or even necessarily clear, and schools must be willing to acknowledge and allow conflict and disagreement to get to a better place. Boler’s question (2007), “What would it take to preserve messiness and conflict as foundational values, rather than being tempted by neat and tidy drive-by different, as we shape the digital future in all its material significance?” applies closely to the potentials of minority identity in education.

Online Relationships and Communication

Online relationships

In an article entitled "Human Connections," educator Lynn Brinckmeyer shares a sentiment that is echoed by educators of all levels and pedagogical viewpoints. According to Brinckmeyer, “unless you are able to make a human connection with your students, the most…meaningful moments will almost certainly be just out of reach” (p. 7). This belief regarding the importance of relationship building between students and their teachers could not only be considered the philosophical underpinning of most educators’ belief systems, but also the hallowed ground upon which much of the modern educational milieu is structured. As the wave of online instruction continues to roll across the educational landscape we must ask how well rooted this foundation of our educational structure may be and if that foundation can bear the weight of the internet’s new and changing role. Are online relationships truly possible? What forms can those relationships take, and how are these forms different than our traditional understanding of education relationships? Do those relationships have educational implications? Can the types of relationships that educators like Brinckmeyer so strongly believe in exist in this new educational milieu? These are the questions that must be asked regarding online relationships and their role in the changing educational environment.

Are online relationships truly possible?

It’s clear in both research and practical understanding that online relationships exist. Through the use of the web people across the globe have made numerous and diverse connections on both personal and professional levels that were previously impossible. Surely everyone reading this website has used the web to communicate with a close friend via email or Skype, connected with a long-lost friend via Facebook, or met someone new in a "virtual" sense (like in EPS 415 for example). Whatever the case may be, it is clear that (barring access issues) people from all different walks of life have the same opportunities to connect with others and strengthen and build existing or new relationships online. In fact, folks are now starting to replace some of what were traditionally FtF relationships with online versions of the same. Barry Wellman (2005) puts this shift beautifully in his article, Community: From Neighborhood to Network, when he states that, “online relationships are filling empty spots in people’s lives now that they no longer wander to the local pub or café to take up with their neighbors” (p. 54). Wellman points out that an inherent multiplicity exists in these online relationships in that most groups consist of like-minded people but at the same time, most people are part of various, diverse groups. Just as we would have one group of friends at the local pub and another at the health club, so too, can we have multiple virtual environments in which to build relationships.

The question that is often raised regarding the ubiquity of online relationship development is whether or not these online relationships negatively influence our FtF relationships, or what some call our "real" relationships. In an article on Associated Content, Joe Thomas posited this exact point by questions whether or not online relationships had a negative impact on personal relationships of college students. This question, however, seems to miss a critical point; when do we reach the point at which online relationships and personal relationships are one and the same? At what point can we remove the term online and simply have a relationship? Thomas’s study found that students who were very active in online relationships tended to have the strongest personal relationships as well (Thomas, 2007) and as such, seems to answer that question for us.

What forms do these relationships take, and how are these forms different than our traditional understanding of education relationships?

Online relationships take on several forms and these forms often contrast with our traditional sense of educational relationships. This next section briefly identifies those forms and highlights the differences between online and traditional education relationships.

Social networking vs. Face to Face interaction

Most notably, naysayers of online relationships point out that the removal on FtF interaction can hamper overall relationship building as nuance and personal connection are lost with the absence of physical proximity and actual human contact. From an educational standpoint, the argument suggests that online teaching can never replace FtF instruction and the bond that teachers and students develop in person. According to the work of Nancy Baym (2002), this simply is not the case. They suggest that the internet provides myriad new and unique opportunities for relationship development and that people regularly form personal relationships very successfully online.

Self-educating communities vs. teacher directed instruction

Another oft noted difference that surfaces between online and traditional relationships in the educational realm is the shift of responsibility for learning. Many, many online relationships are built within self-educating communities in which learners work together and combine their knowledge to form and build new knowledge. According to Burbules (200?) these communities often share a passion and commitment to a particular subject or issue and that passion drives the collective search for knowledge. This understanding of new learning can be very different from the traditional educational perspective of a teacher standing in front of a group of students imparting her/his wisdom to students. Ultimately we must ask which model presents a more nuanced approach to learning that is student centered and which model better prepares students for their adult lives? One would be hard pressed to find someone choosing the latter over the former.

Introductions to diversity, vs. homogeneous groupings

The structure of the above mentioned learning communities presents yet another, more nuanced difference between these two educational approaches. Nicholas Jankowsi (2002) points out these differences in a chapter of the text, Handbook of New Media, in which he notes that "organic" communities tend to be more homogeneous while online relationships in educational settings provide opportunities for learners to work with tremendously diverse peers. The current structure of public education which places children in schools based upon where they live exemplifies this homogeneousness, while the creation of this website is a perfect example of diverse students working together to create a unified project.

Web 2.0 vs. academically developed curriculums

In the Web 2.0 world, facts change by the minute. No longer are words written and printed on a page and presumed to be fact until the next edition of the text is printed. Information is now constantly updating and changing and as such, if educators are to foster the development of learning in this era, they must be prepared for these constant adjustments. Many educators will argue, like Michico Kaktuni (2007), that this new environment makes our learning to simple and non-erudite. However, it is hard to underestimate the democratizing power of Web 2.0 and the way it provides all users the ability to become actively engaged in the creation and development of new knowledge.

What are the educational implications of these new relationships?

The argument many traditionalists would make lies in an inherent disconnect between those with a traditional view, and the new Weltanschauung that technology has created in education. Traditionalists would argue that while online relationships truly exist, they do not, by definition, fit into the model suggested by Brinchmeyer’s quotation at the beginning of this section. How, they may ask, can real relationships be fostered and developed in virtual worlds. Baglione and Nastanski (2007) highlight this feeling noting that many educators continue to debate the value of online relationships in education. This argument however, misses a critical point in that it completely ignores the different needs of the students compared to teachers. The purpose of education is education of students, not teacher comfort, and while the traditionalists may certainly struggle building online relationships do our students have the same struggle? One could certainly argue that students who have only ever known technological environments would not struggle at all, but conversely thrive in such an environment. Additionally, traditionalists would also argue that online relationships actually detract from face to face connection between people. Owen Edwards supports this argument in a June 2009 article in Edutopia in which he provides examples (a mother swinging her child at a park while talking on her cell phone, middle school students walking home together but all focused on their portable email, etc.) of our personal disconnect in support of furthering our addiction to technology. Again though, one could argue that this interwoven relationship with technology is precisely why we as educators must harness the power of online relationships in our instructional practices.

Can our traditional understanding of teacher/student relationships mesh with these new models?

The entirety of this section clearly indicates that online relationships are real and that they can be of real benefit to those who are in them. Based upon this information, the question is not can but will. Hopefully the answer will be yes.

Types of computer-mediated communication

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is essentially the communication that occurs between and among people in the virtual world. It can occur through a wide variety of ways including, but not limited to, online gaming, blogging, or texting. Four types of computer-mediated communication exist. The first is Type I CMC in that both parties, the sender and receiver, know each other (Pudner, 2007). Examples of Type I CMC include text messaging and emailing with known cell phone numbers or email addresses. Two good friends that go to school together, work together, or go out together normally communicate in this manner. Type II CMC is defined as communication in which people embrace screen names that do not necessarily correspond to their real names (Pudner, 2007). Instant messaging, chat, and MMORPGs private messaging are examples of this type of CMC. The third type of CMC, Type III, occurs when people using their real names (in most cases) publicize information to unknown people (Pudner, 2007). Examples include Facebook, MySpace, Live Journal, and blogs. Type III CMC has become one of the most popular types of communication among teens and young adults. Many, however, criticize its uses saying that teens and young adults are putting too much private information online for unknown "predators" to see. Lastly, Type IV CMC occurs between unknown people, meaning that both the sender and receiver are unknown to each other (Pudner, 2007). Examples of Type IV are MMORPG action speech, public chat, and anonymous posts or blogs.

Educational implications of CMC

In a traditional classroom setting, teachers typically engage in one-way communication. That is they stand in front of the class lecturing for the bulk of the available class period. This leaves little time for students to contribute to the discussion. If time is allotted for student participation, not all students may have time to share their thoughts or opinions. Classes taught using an online component or fully online that take full advantage of CMC will allow for this two-way communication. Students will be able to explore alternative learning styles, and they will be able to communicate with others when it is most convenient for them (Berge, 1995). Students will hopefully be more engaged in the learning process and open up to new ideas. The role of teachers in this atmosphere will change from being more authoritative to facilitative and they will "provide guidance to help students develop meaningful ways to construct their own knowledge" (Berge, 1995). Students will learn much more from each other rather than solely from the teacher, and students with diverse identities and abilities will be able to collaborate with one another in different cities, states, or even countries. These changes in the way education is delivered will certainly affect the existence and future of universities and colleges (Berge, 1995). More online programs will be created to cater to non-traditional students that will focus on using CMC.

Modality switching

Very often, relationships that are formed online through CMC—any type of online communication—develop into relationships that are maintained primarily through FtF communication. This is referred to as modality switching, and occurs when the interactions between two people switch from one form of communication to another (Ramirez, 2007, p. 288). Before technology was so prevalent in society, the interactions would switch from written letters sent by "snail mail" to either telephone conversations or FtF meetings. Ramirez (2007) states that interactions now switch from CMC to FtF (p. 288). CMC is instantaneous communication, so relationships can be formed and maintained much more quickly and efficiently now as there is no wait time between letters sent from one person to the other. In addition, relationships can form between individuals worldwide with the advent of the Internet that a few years ago might never have been possible.

No matter which modes of communication are used, individuals should not represent themselves in a false manner. They should want to show their true personality in order to form a more meaningful relationship. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Most misrepresentations are related to physical attributes and are generally exposed when communication switches to FtF (Ramirez, 2007, p. 290). Certain characteristics, such as humor, nonverbal communication, and overall personality, cannot be "seen" using CMC. Therefore, those types of attributes will also be exposed when people meet FtF (Ramirez, 2007, p. 290).

FtF meetings can do two things for a relationship: enhance it or ruin it. If individuals show their true identities in an online setting, then meeting FtF can only help that relationship. They have nothing to hide and have been speaking openly and honestly in the hopes of being understood (Ellison, 2006). In addition, "the future FtF interaction they anticipated meant that [they] had to balance their desire for self-promotion with their need for accurate self-presentation" (Ellison, 2006). They want to make themselves sound good without embellishing or stretching the truth because the truth will definitely surface in a FtF meeting. On the other hand, those individuals that try to alter their identity generally end up in a failing relationship simply because they have not been honest with the other person. This type of relationship is typically not serious in the first place. If they know they are going to meet someone FtF and have no thoughts about beginning a serious relationship, they will engage in self-enhancement, in which they enhance or alter their behaviors and identity to match that of the person they are meeting (Ellison, 2006). All individuals have a choice of whether to create a new identity and persona online compared to their real life identity, but in the end, if they are looking for a lasting relationship, being truthful and honest is the best path to take.

How do people know that they are not deceiving others or being deceived in an online relationship that could possibly turn into an offline relationship? It is somewhat challenging. However, people looking for a serious relationship will typically present themselves in a credible manner. As they develop their own rules for assessing others, they essential create rules for presenting themselves (Ellison, 2006). Another question that needs answered addresses the issue of timing. When is the right time to switch from CMC to FtF? Is there a right time? If a relationship is going to switch from one mode to another, it should be done early in the relationship (Ramirez, 2007, p. 306). As two individuals communicate online, they learn a lot about each other and communication is very open. However, as time goes on, expectations of what the other individual will be like in person are extremely heightened and idealizations about that person are made. Therefore, to avoid being "let down" after an extended period of time in an online relationship, studies suggest to meet FtF early in the relationship. By doing so, it eliminates a long relationship online that might have not worked out in the end anyway.

Trust and Respect

In the online community, people can and often do take on one or more alternative identities. Therefore, how do people know if those they are communicating with are being honest and truthful? Who can they really trust? "Trust plays an outstanding role in human relations in general and in mediated collaboration in particular" (Bente, 2008, p. 294). In FtF meetings, people rely on nonverbal communication and signals to create a trusting environment. However, "cyberspace by its nature facilitates interaction which is independent of geography, physical space or even physical place" (Adrian, 2008). Thus, this nonverbal communication is absent resulting in difficulties deciphering whether or not people are truthful and trustworthy. It then changes how people engage in social relations. Taking on an alternate online identity can enhance creativity, but it typically does not facilitate online relationships. A person only identified as Botgirl claims that "a persistent insistence on pseudonymity in an otherwise very close online friendship is a likely indicator of: a lack of trust in the other person, personal dishonesty, and a sense of shame about aspects of one’s human self" ("Trust and Shame", 2009). Speaking from experience, she has not given away much of her real life identity due to these three aspects. On the other hand, "avatars are hypothesized to convey social cues and enhance social presence" (Bente, 2008, p. 294). Essentially this means that avatars are being created so that they can show nonverbal cues seen through a person’s facial and body movements. This is expected to increase trust between people in online environments.

Harassment and Violence

Second Life (SL) is a wonderful online environment used for social networking, educational purposes, and many other functions. No online environment, including SL, is free from harassment or violence. Many college professors and entire universities use SL as a learning tool and even conduct classes within SL. However, after the shootings at Virginia Tech on April 17, 2007, an avatar entered the Ohio University’s SL campus and fired at the other avatars (Bugeja, 2007). Why would a person choose to do this in an online learning environment? Aren’t there enough problems in the real world without adding to them in the virtual world? Can this person, this avatar, be brought to court for something done online? These questions have not been answered, but they have brought about many more.

Professors, either knowingly or unknowingly, force students to agree to the SL terms of service when they require students to sign up for SL for a class or a project (Bugeja, 2007). Would the professor or the university be responsible then for any violence or harassment that occurs between or among his or her students? Second Life claims no responsibility for actions taken like this, so it begs the question of who is responsible (Bugeja, 2007). Violence or harassment that occurs in SL, a virtual world, can even affect a person’s real life. Erez Reuveni acknowledged that “female avatars who experience virtual sexual harassment (and even rape) report suffering real-world anger and grief” (Bugeja, 2007). Many more situations like this have occurred, but since it is happening in an online, anonymous environment, little can be done.

Technology and Student Ability

Technology in the classroom

Literacy, the ability to read and write, is the basis of student achievement. With the rapid development of technology, literacy should also include the ability to interact with technology in a meaningful way. Although today’s technology could bring advances that would significantly improve literacy, schools are still slow at using it.

On January 8, 2002, President Bush sighed the No Child Left Behind Act. One program targeted by NCLB was the Enhancing Education Through Technology (Jamshed Lam). The purpose of ED Tech is to teach children how to integrate technology available to them effectively so that they can become technologically literate by the time they get to the 8th grade.

The need to improve literacy using technology in the classroom is also sighted in the state and national standards. The National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) Project defines standards for students by integrating curriculum technology, technology support, and evaluation of technology use, etc. NETS believe that in order for students to survive in today’s culture, they must be able to use technology effectively. They also believe that in order to teach to the standards and enhance literacy in our multicultural environment, technology has to somehow be integrated into the classroom and used by all students regardless of their ability level (Lam).

Student ability levels

Ability is defined as the capability to do something physically and/or mentally (Merriam-Webster). In the general education setting, students learn at different ability levels. Depending on their ability level, some students have a learning disorder, emotional behavior disorder (EBD), are gifted/talented, or culturally and linguistically diverse; just to name a few.

A learning disorder or a learning disability is defined as a disorder found in children with normal intelligence who have difficulties in learning specific skills. The disability makes it hard for the student to learn basic skills or information at the same rate as most children of the same age (wordnet.princeton.edu). Skills that are most affected by a learning disability include reading, writing, listening, speaking, reasoning, and doing math. Other disorders that make learning difficult but are not considered a learning disability are Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Autism.

Emotional Behavior Disorder is described as a condition in which behavioral or emotional responses of an individual in school are so different that they adversely affect performance in areas such as self care, social relationships, personal adjustments, academic progress, and classroom behavior ( National Association of School Psychologist). Because students with EBD tend to dislike school or school related tasks due to academic and social skills deficiencies, it is often very difficult to teach these students. EBD can co-exist with other disorders.

Gifted/Talented students are students who show evidence of high achievement capabilities in areas such as intellectual, creative, and leadership capacity. They often need services and activities not originally provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities (National Association for gifted Children). Some gifted students are also diagnosed with ADHD.

There is a disproportionately higher number of students with disabilities from culturally or linguistically diverse backgrounds than from the general population (Fitzpatrick & Brow, 2008). Assistive technology is utilized less frequently by these groups of students; even though the number of students in this category is high.

Ability Gap

As we consider the technological abilities that students bring with them into America’s classrooms, we would be remiss if we did not consider the abilities that their teachers and administrators bring in as well. Unfortunately, all too often America’s teachers are the previously mentioned digital immigrants, ill-equipped to instruct our digital native students in the technological areas that will be such vital and integral aspects of their lives. While many educators take the philosophy of William Price (2008) who fears what he sees as the inevitable loss of personal connection and face to face instruction, we as educators must always strive to remember that our educational must focus on our students, and the skills that they need for the future. The following section will highlight some of the critical areas in which the technological skills of students and teachers remain unaligned which will be followed by educational implications for closing this skill gap.

Certainly use of new technological tools and the internet as an informational and communicative tool requires an unprecedented amount of multitasking in its users. Spend a few minutes observing any adolescent in his or her bedroom and this multi-tasking behavior quickly becomes evident. In the middle of a weekday afternoon you would be likely to observe this adolescent sitting at his computer with one window open to Facebook, another open to instant messaging, and at least two more opened for homework (one on the assignment, one on research). He or she would most likely additionally have his/her cell phone on his lap between text messages and iPod ear buds dangling down in wisps. According to Carrier, Cheever, Rosen, Binetez, and Chang (2008) each forthcoming generation brings along greater multi-tasking abilities and is more prone to use that ability in the course of their daily lives. These authors’ study found that the "net generation" (our students) do more multi-tasking in their daily lives than members of Generation X (our young teachers) who do more than baby-boomers (our veteran teachers). Clearly if students are to effectively learn these skills from an educational perspective their teachers must also have them.

The emergence of social networking and more broadly, the new communication style that these new technologies require, represents another area in which our students’ perspectives often outpace those of their teachers. Jessie Whittock (2009) highlights both of these camps in her exploration of Twitter use in academia. At root here is a fundamental dichotomy that spans the spectrum of educational philosophies. From a general standpoint, one could certainly argue that this is simply the debate between constructivism and traditionalism in which one camp believes that the educational experience must take a classical approach while the other believes in incorporating the newest ideas and following the direction pointed out by the students. Some, like Nicholas Carr (2008) argue that the likes of text messaging, Facebook updating, and Twitter are eroding the fundamentals of Language and literacy in modern society. Others argue that the unprecedented access to information and communication that modern technology provides represents a tremendous benefit to our society and as such, must be adapted to. Ultimately, these diverse viewpoints must be merged if we are to determine a coherent strategy for educating our students.

Another critical difference in this ability gap is the generational differences in perspectives on access to information. Anyone who has ever used the internet knows that it has revolutionized our ability to quickly and efficiently access and utilize information and in doing so, it has removed barriers to information that have existed throughout history. Our students are constantly 'wired;’ iPhones in hand ready access any information in which they are interested in at that moment. Before Guttenberg and moveable type information was in the hands of the very, very few. Books and libraries revolutionized the ability of people to gather and collect information more efficiently and today, countless people have instant access to nearly any information that they would desire to know. Now gone are the days that families save up to purchase a complete set of Encyclopedia Britannica for students to use for research, which begs the question, if our research tools are different, shouldn’t our instruction on research practices be different as well?

Logic would certainly suggest that one cannot effectively teach a skill that he or she does not have and these discrepancies must be addressed if our students are to be able to effectively and efficiently utilize their skills.

Educational Implications of the Ability Gap

While considering the existence of the ability differences listed above we must be sure to reflect upon how best to close this gap. The reviewed literature points to some specific steps that can be taken to help ensure that this gap is closed and that the current educational system can provide these necessary skills to our students.

One way in which this gap can be addressed is by working to improve the skills of our current teachers in these technological areas. As mentioned previously, our teachers are generally digital immigrants while our students are almost exclusively digital natives and as such, this is a tenuous balance to strike. According to Mainwaring and Bergan (2006), it is vital that our current teachers have the ability to effectively and efficiently utilize these technological skills. They note that the use of technology self assessments and online tutorial programs can help “schools…ensure that their teachers know how to integrate technology through curriculum and instruction…by first requir[ing] teachers to be proficient in the technology themselves” (Mainwaring and Bergan, 2006, p. 37). These sentiments are echoed by Bybee and Fuchs (2006) who suggest that students are being denied instruction in technological competencies by educators who are more comfortable teaching traditional subjects such as reading and math. Educators must close this gap.

Of course, the future of the teaching profession lies in its pre-service teachers and those are the folks who we have the best chance of educating in these new technological literacies. In many ways this is both the easier and the more efficient area in which to focus our efforts. For one thing, as David Coley (2009) notes, these soon to be educators of members of Generation Y who, “have it [technology and technological skills] in their DNA” (p. 20), and as such, making them comfortable with the use of technology in the classroom is fundamentally easier. In addition, as Henderson and Scheffler (2003) note, by adding these strategies to pre-service teaching programs we are focusing our efforts at the source of our concern and ensuring that teachers have competencies in new literacies as soon as they enter the classroom. Anderson and Maninger (2007) add even further support to this argument with their study that found that explicit instruction and dialogue about technology integration and multi-literacies not only improves the abilities of pre-service teachers, but also their beliefs and intentions for future classroom practices. No doubt, this is an area in which education programs must continue to propel forward.

Of course we would be remiss if we were to leave out any discussion of access issues and the implications that these issues have for education regarding technological abilities and multi-literacies. As has been noted time and again, comfort with and use of technology is critical to personal and professional success in the 21st century and unfortunately, too many of our students are denied access to technologies that can help them to become literate in these areas. Additionally, the International Telecommunications Union points out that the digital divide continues to widen as technology rapidly progresses based upon financial incentives. Specifically, poor students in our country are not only routinely denied access to technology but then in turn they are denied access to the skills that these technologies allow us to learn and internalize. If we cannot find a way to provide this multi-tiered access to these students, our efforts to train current and pre-service teachers will be moot.

Assistive Technology

Assistive technology is defined as technology equipment modified and used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with a disability (Parette & Peterson-Karlan, 2007).

According to the Assistive Technology Act of 1998, all students receiving special education services are entitled to the consideration of assistive technology devices and services (Behrmann, Chung, Mastropieri, & Quinn, 2009). The type of assistive technology and services needed are based on the individual needs of each student. There are a wide range of assistive technology tools available to help struggling students Listed are some assistive technology tools that address specific learning disabilities.

Writing

• Abbreviation Expander- Software program used with word processor. Allows a user to create, store, and reuse abbreviations for frequently used words or phrases.
• Alternative Keyboards- Programmable keyboards with special overlays that customize the appearance and function of a standard keyboard.
• Graphic Organizers and Outlining- programs that help people who have trouble organizing and outlining information as they start a writing project.

Math

• Electronic Math Worksheets- Software programs that help organize, align, and work out math problems on a computer screen.
• Paper-Based Computer Pen- Records and links audio to what a person writes using pen and special paper. It allows student to take notes while at the same time recording the teacher. The student can later listen to any section of his/her notes by touching the pen to his/her handwriting.
• Talking Calculators- Reads aloud each number, symbol, or operation key. Vocalizes answer to a problem.

Reading

• Audio Books and Publications- Recorded books that allows student to listen to text. Available in audiocassettes, CDs, and MP3 downloads
• Optical Character Recognition- Scan printed material into a computer or handheld unit. The scanned text is read allowed by a screen reading system.

Listening

• Personal FM Listening Systems- transmit speaker’s voice directly to user’s ear. Helps listener focus on what the speaker is saying.
• Variable Speed Tape Recorders- Allows student to listen to prerecorded text or to capture spoken information and play it back later.

Organizational and Memory

• Free-form Database software- allows student to create and store electronic notes by jotting down information. Information can be retrieved later by typing any fragment of the original note.
• Information/Data Managers- Helps plan, organize, store, and retrieve calendar, task list, etc. in electronic form.

While all of these tools would benefit students with different abilities in one way or another, there are barriers that would keep this from happening. The major barrier is money. The funding to access these devices in the schools is highly unlikely with many school districts. Another barrier could be few training programs for special education teachers that include courses or class sessions on assistive technology applications and issues. Lack of ongoing support can also become a barrier. There is much more work to be done to ensure assistive technology is being used to assist students in achieving to the best of their ability. Educational professionals need to understand how and why assistant technology works and how they can incorporate it into their classroom in a way where all students can learn.

Disability and Self-Expression

Computer technology and the internet have enabled some disabled people to reach out to the world in ways not possible before computers. For example, Rachel Gillerlain Weiser's video "This is not a voyeuristic freak show: Disability activism in online media" (2009) highlights the experiences of a non-verbal autistic woman. Though she is not able to speak, this woman is able to communicate through her writing; with the internet and computer-assisted technology, she has found her voice and is able to express her ideas to the world. In many "real" realities, people with profound physical or mental disabilities are seen as stupid, idiots, or even freaks; however, this video demonstrates that some people who cannot speak still have a lot to say. Development of these people's identities on the web is of vital importance, not just for the individuals themselves, but for the world around them who has not known them as full people.

Educationally, the implications for this kind of identity development on the web are enormous. While not every student would be able to make use of them fully, still technology could give voice to many students who have not been able to be mainstreamed in the past.

Future Forecast

Building global citizens

Society today faces integration of cultures everyday as people migrate between countries. While individuals move translocally, they introduce their own culture into the new culture, fusing two cultures to build an identity. Leaving one country to move to another may alter personal identities, as each individual tries to negotiate who they are within a new cultural context. Trying to build an identity is not an easy task as communication and transportation technologies enable continued access to the departed culture. A communication perspective emphasizes that identities are negotiated, co-created, reinforced and challenged through communication with others (Martin & Nakayama, p. 151). From a critical perspective, identity is shaped through social and historical forces emphasizing contexts and resistance of ascribed identity (p. 153-154). Avowed identity describes the identity an individual claims for itself whereas ascribed identity is identity placed by others (p. 154). There may be constant struggle to resist the identity society labels and in effect make us ascribe other identities to ourselves (p. 154). To explain this process, French philosopher Louis Althusser, uses the term interpellation, “the communication process by which one is pulled into the social forces that place people into a specific identity” (G-6).

In recent years, the emphasis on the interrelationship of culture and identity as well as culture and behavior has grown (Holliday et al, p. 66). Adrian Holliday, a professor of Applied Linguistics at Canterbury Christ Church University, theorizes identity as a personal project where depending on culture and the exchange in communication, you are building your own self (p. 66). As people move across borders whether it is nations, state borders, or a border small as personal space, individuals form their identities through the interaction of different perspectives and cultures from different people. British sociologist Anthony Giddens argues that although there are commonalities between cultures, "what a 'person' is understood to be" varies culturally, hence the "personal project" of "building your own self" (p. 68). Giddens views self-identity as “not a distinctive trait, or even a collection of traits, possessed by the individual. It is the self as reflexively understood by the person in terms of her or his biography” (p. 68). Giddens adds that “the individual’s biography must continually integrate events which occur in the external world, and sort them into the ongoing ‘story’ [or personal project] about the self” (p. 68). Each of us carries a story of our own and through traveling and ways of communication, those stories continue to build identities.

Similarly, sociologist Gerd Baumann argues that “people see themselves as members of several communities; each with its own culture and that making one’s life meant ranging across them” (p. 58). In addition, Hannerz adds that “many people have biographies entailing cross-cutting allegiances and share different parts of their personal cultural repertoires with different collections of people” (p. 58), thus defining the concept of cultural identity as an on-going translocal cultural process. As our "culture" integrates with the internet, each member of the “meta-communities” (Burbules, 2000) will need to examine his/her identity in reflection with different identities. Burbules writes that education should not simply be about transmitting an existing system of belief and value from one generation to another, but to have some room for questioning, re-interpreting, and modifying that system in the context of a diverse rapidly changing world (1997). The connections made on the net without doubt raises awareness of differences between identities. The questioning and re-examination of difference is an essential part of education, as difference itself allows us to question our own identity, making us realize not only the differences but the potential sameness in others (Burbules, 1997).

School education contributes in various ways to maintain, construct, reconstruct, and sometimes to destroying some identities (Okuma-Nyström, 2009, p. 25), but it is crucial to see how technology and popular media can also affect the building of identities.

“Playing” to build skills in identities

The May 24, 2009 Time magazine issue focused on "The Future of Work," how work is ever changing compared to 10 years ago. 10 years ago we didn't have Facebook. We didn't even have Google. You can see how much our world has shifted technologically watching Did you know? 3.0. Back in 1997, Kress (as cited in Williams, 2008, p. 682) said, “We know that tomorrow will not be like today. That is one of the few certainties of the present period. We can perceive only dimly what the day after that tomorrow is likely to be like.” With such shifting society, how will we know what skills to teach? Janet Reid, managing partner at Global Lead, a consulting firm that advises companies like PepsiCo and Procter & Gamble says "By 2019, every leader will have to be culturally dexterous on a global scale. A big part of it is knowing how to motivate and reward people who are very different from yourself" (Fisher, 2009).

Rob Carter, chief information officer at FedEx thinks the best training for anyone who wants to succeed in 10 years is the online game World of Warcraft. He says WoW offers a peek into the workplace of the future. "Each team faces a fast-paced, complicated series of obstacles called quests, and each player, via his online avatar, must contribute to resolving them or else lose his place on the team. The player who contributes most gets to lead the team--until someone else contributes more. The game is intensely collaborative, constantly demanding and often surprising. It takes exactly the same skill set people need more of in the future to collaborate on work projects" says Carter, "and the scary part is that the kids are already doing it" (Fisher, 2009).

Similarly, James Paul Gee, an Arizona State University professor argues that gaming holds the key to teach kids how to achieve problem-solving skills. Gee argues that all games are essentially problem-solving and it allows children to solve problems collaboratively and innovatively. The video can be seen here: Gee on grading with games. Gee, in his book titled, What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy uses his own experiences as an enthusiastic gamer to explore how gaming can promote critical thinking, active learning, self-knowledge, problem-solving, and “embodied” learning—the holistic blending of mind and body firmly embedded in a material, social and cultural world (Tallim, 2004). He summarizes that learning objectives of both video games and classrooms incorporate the following principles: understanding interrelations within and across multiple sign systems (semiotic principle), using role-play to better understand real and virtual concepts of identity/identities (identity principle), providing inherent rewards for learners of all levels of skill, customized to each learner's level, effort, and growing mastery, and signaling the learner's ongoing achievements (Achievement Principle); providing ample opportunities for practice in ways that engage and empower the learner (Practice Principle); and maintaining a learner-centered focus, with opportunities for the learner to experiment and make discoveries on his or her own (Discover Principle). (Tallim, 2004). Gee, (as cited in Williams, 2008, pg. 684) argues that literacy skills are learned through experiences and acquisition more thoroughly than through direct instruction. If that is the case, then it is essential that we start paying more attention to how our students are creating their identities online through reading and writing.

Bronwyn T. Williams, Director of Composition at the University of Louisville, Kentucky points out that young people engage in online discussion groups covering subjects from television programs to relationships to computer technology. “Upon entering these groups, they not only need to understand the general textual conventions that govern these groups but also to figure out the context-specific customs of messages and responses for each group. Learning to negotiate such literacy situations teaches students valuable lessons about reading and writing” (p. 684). Williams argue that the most important thing we can do is initiate conversations with our students about how and why they read and write online. Why do they visit those sites, how they make sense of the material on those sites, and what they write in any online setting. Initiating conversations can lead to a better understanding of the social skills students have learned online, such as collaboration and knowledge sharing (p. 685). The evolving possibilities of online literacy practices may change a great deal about how we perceive and teach reading and writing, however, what will not change is the importance of identity in terms of literacy practices (p. 688). If anything, new literacies reveal to us how important it will be to continue to consider how people position themselves in changing cultural contexts and how that influences their ability to communicate with others (p. 688).

In another article, Literacy identity work: playing to learn with popular media, Alvermann and Heron cite John Seely Brown, chief research scientist at Xerox Corporation, that play enables the kind of free-form thinking needed in today’s highly technical world. New information communication technologies are tapping into an inner source of creative power and opening up the kid in each of us (p. 120).

Focus on Prospective Identities

According to a research led by James and Diana Oblinger, the following list of characteristics is of what they call the “Net Generation.”

• Ability to read visual images—intuitive visual communicators
• Visual-spatial skills—perhaps linked to game playing experience
• Inductive discovery—learn better through discovery than by being told
• Attentional deployment—ability to shift attention rapidly from one task to another
• Fast response time—ability to respond quickly and expect rapid responses in return
• Digitally literate—ability to intuitively use a variety of IT devices and navigate the Net
• Connected—through networked media
• Experiential—prefer to learn by doing rather than by being told what to do (as cited by Huijser, 2006, p. 27-28).

This list, taken together, paint a picture of different types of skills contemporary students may bring to the classrooms. It will then be crucial for educators to combine this list of skills with the use of multiliteracies to better guide students “to design their own social futures” (The New London Group, 2006).

Conclusion

In this WikiEd, we have attempted to shed light on both identity and ability as these entities pertain to education in a world of ever-changing technology. We have discussed many facets of these issues, including the topic of the physical body versus the body in the digital world. Identity has been defined and situated in the context of the real-life body and its relation to the virtual self. One main idea that clearly impacts education deals with the issue of digital natives vs. digital immigrants. Today, teachers are more likely to be less fluent in this realm, whereas the majority of students have been around it their entire lives. As discussed above, there is also a very real monetary cost associated with school systems staying up to date with technological tools as well as teacher education.

The ominous-sounding cloak of anonymity has been defined and viewed in a more positive light, and the ways that students perceive others – as well as represent themselves in this realm – have been explored. This anonymity that is available in an online setting should be embraced an an opportunity for students to break away from stereotypes and enjoy freedom from ability limitations that they might experience in the regular classroom. While there are negatives that come along with this anonymity, educators must understand that the real benefits from anonymity, when used properly, allow greater creativity and freedom for their students. We have also taken an closer look at whether or not the possibility of building rich online relationships is a reachable goal, and show just how important communication processes are in creating worthwhile relationships, especially as it relates to education.

Additionally, we have explored the concept of ability and how it relates to technology in education. As students come to school with many different ability levels, educators must be open to using new technologies that allow these abilities differences to be minimized. The so-named ability gap has been defined here, along with ways to overcome the significant limitations that this can impose on students. We no longer live in a local, sheltered world. Globalization has arrived, and education needs to keep pace with this rapidly shifting dynamic. The opportunities for the sharing of information on a world-wide scale and collaboration are huge. In order to provide the current - as well as future - generations with the competitive edge needed to be successful in this global society, education needs to embrace the opportunities that are available to enable students to thrive. While we have admitted that this is not an easy task, it is perhaps the most necessary goal to be undertaken in our current realm of education.

It is our hope that this information can be utilized by educators and administrators in the realm of education to better understand identity and ability, and how to apply and use this information to improve the education of students in today's world.

References

• (2009). Trust and Shame in Pseudonymous Personal Relationships. Botgirl’s Second Life Diary. Retrieved June 29, 2009, from http://botgirl.blogspot.com/2009/05/trust-and-shame-in-pseudonymous.html
• ability. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged, 1.1. Retrieved June 10, 2009, from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ability
• Adrian, A. (2008). No one knows you are a dog: Identity and reputation in virtual worlds. Computer Law & Security Report, 24(4), 366-374.
• Alper, S. (2006). Assistive Technology for Individuals with disabilities: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature. Journal of Special Education, 21(2), 47-64.
• Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2005). The Social Net: Understanding human behavior in cyberspace. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.com
• Anderson, S. & Maninger, R. (2007). Preservices teachers’ abilities, beliefs, and intentions Regarding technology integration. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(2),151-172.
• Alvermann D.E., and Heron A.H. (2001). Literacy identity work: Playing to learn with popular media. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. International Reading Association, 118-122. Retrieved June 30, 2009 from EBSCO database.
• Atkinson, E., & DePalma, R. (2007). Dangerous spaces: constructing and contesting sexual identities in an online discussion forum [Electronic version]. Gender and Education, 20(2), 183-194.
• Atkinson, E., & DePalma, R. (2006). The sound of silence: talking about sexual orientation and schooling. Sex Education, 6(4), 333-349.
• Balko, R. (2008). Publius blogs. Reason, 40(6), 18.
• Banks, J. A. (2001). Dimensions of multicultural education. In Cultural Diversity and Education: Foundations, Curriculum, and Teaching (4th ed., pp. 3-17). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
• Barovick, H. (2008). Online confession. Time, 172(18), 65-66.
• Behrmann, M., Chung, Y., Mastropieri, M., & Quinn, B. (2009). Who is Using Assistive Technology in Schools? Journal of Special Education, 24(1), 1-13.
• Bennett, S. et al. (2008) The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology.
• Bente, G., Ruggenberg, S, Kramer, N., & Eschenburg, F. (2008). Avatar-Mediated Networking: Increasing Social Presence and Interpersonal Trust in Net-Based Collaborations. Human Communication Research, 34, 287-318.
• Berge, Z. & Collins, M. (1995). Computer-Mediation Communication and the Online Classroom in Distance Learning. Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine 2(4). Retrieved June 10, 2009, from http://www.ibiblio.org/cmc/mag/1995/apr/berge.html
• Bers, M. (2001). Identity Construction Environments: Developing Personal and Moral Values trhough the Design of a Virtual City. The Journal of the Learning Sicences, 10(4), 365-415. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
• Boler, M. (2007). Hypes, hopes and actualities: New digital Cartesianism and bodies in cyberspace. New Media and Society, 9(1), 139-168.
• Boyd, D. (2004). Why blogs aren’t a safe space. Message posted to http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2004/01/19/why_blogs_arent_a_safe_space.html
• Boyd, D. (2007). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In Ed. David Buckingham MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning – Youth, Identiity, and Digital Media Volume. Retrieved June 14, 2009 from http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2445/2213.
• Brinckmeyer, (2008). Human connection. Teaching Music, 15(6), 7.
• Bugeja, M. (2007, September 14). Second Thoughts About Second Life. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved June 10, 2009, from http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2007/09/2007091401c.htm
• Burbules, N. (1997). A Grammar of Difference: Some Ways of Rethinking Difference and Diversity as Educational Topics. Published in Australian Education Researcher. Retrieved June 29, 2009 from http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/burbules/papers/difference.html
• Burbules, N. (2000). Does the Internet Constitute a Global Educational Community? Published in Globalization and Education: Critical Perspectives. Retrieved June 29, 2009 from http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/burbules/papers/community.html.
• Burbules, N. (2002). Like a version: Playing with online identities. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 34(4), 387-393.
• Bybee, R. et. al. (2006). Preparing the 21st century workforce: a new reform in science and technology education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 349-352.
• Chen, H., et. al. (2008). Online privacy control via anonymity and pseudonym: Cross-cultural Implications. Behaviour and Information Technology, 27(3), 229-242.
• Coley, D. (2009). Leading generation Y. Principal Leadership, February 2009, 24-48.
• Cumming, T. (2008). Social Skills Instruction for Adolescents with Emotional Disabilities: A technology Based Intervention. Journal of Special Education, 23(1), 19-33.
• de Montes, L. E. S., Oran, S. M., & Willis, E. M. (2002). Power, language, and identity: Voices from an online course. Computers and Composition, 19, 251-271.
• Donath, J. S. 1999. Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. Smith, M. A., Kollock, P (Eds). Communities in cyberspace. London; New York: Routledge.
• Dyal, A. (2009). Assistive Technology: What Every School Leader Should Know. Education, 129(30), 556-560.
• Edwards. O. (2009). High tech connections lead to face to face disconnections. Edutopia, June, 2009.
• Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2). Retrieved June 10, 2009, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/ellison.html
• Fearon, J. (1999). What is Identity (As We Now Use the Word)? Retrieved June 12, 2009, from http://www.stanford.edu/~jfearon/papers/iden1v2.pdf.
• Fisher, A. (2009). The Way We'll Work: When Gen X Runs the Show. TIME Magazine, 173(20), 39-51.
• Fitzpatrick, M. (2008). Assistive Technology Access and Use: Consideration for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students and Their Families. Journal of Special Education, 23(4), 47-52.
• Giles, J. (1997). No self to be found: the search for personal identity. Lanham; Oxford: University Press of America.
• Gray, N. (2008). From the blogosphere. Nature, 454(7203), 1.
• Greenfield, P., & Yan, Z. (2006). Children, adolescents, and the internet: A new field of inquiry in developmental psychology [Electronic version]. Developmental Psychology, 42(3), 391-394.
• Hall, S. (1997). Old and New Identities in Culture, Globalization, and the world System: contemporary conditions for the representation of identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Hansen, M., et. al. (2004). Privacy enhancing identity management. Information Security Technical Support, 9(1), 35-45.
• Henderson, M. et. al. (2003). New literacies, standards, and teacher education. Education, 124(2), 390-395.
• Hiroaki, M. (2009). How anonymous are you online? Examining online social behaviors from a cross cultural perspective. AI & Society, 23(2), 297-307.
• Holahan, C. (2008). The dark side of web anonymity. Business Week, 4083, 64-65.
• Holliday, A., Hyde, M. & Kullman, J. (2004). Intercultural communication an advanced resource book. London: Routledge.
• identity. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary. Retrieved June 10, 2009, from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/identity
• Huijser, H. (2006) Refocusing multiliteracies for the Net Generation. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 2(1), 21-33. Retrieved June 29, 2009, from http://eprints.usq.edu.au/1147/1/118.pdf
• Hum, S. (2002). Performing Gendered Identities: A small-group collaboration in a computer-mediated classroom interaction. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 18(2), 19-38.
• Kang, J. (2000) Cyber-Race. Harvard Law Review, 113(5), 1130-1208. The Harvard Law Review Association
• Kendall, L. (2002). Hanging Out in the Virtual Pub: Masculinities and Relationships Online. University of California Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.com
• Lam, J. Technology in the Classroom. Retrieved June 9, 2009, from http://www.tech-nology.com
• Lee, K. (2008). A neophyte about online teaching: Almost done. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(7), 1180-1186.
• Lievrouw, L., & Livingstone, S. (2006). Handbook of new media: Updated student edition. New York: Sage.
• Mainwairing, T. & Bergan, T. (2006). Tech-savvy teachers. T.H.E. Journal, 33(12), 37-40.
• Martin, J.N. & Nakayama, T.K. (2004). Intercultural Communication in Contexts:3rd Edition. New York: McGraw Hill.
• Monroe, B. (2006). Can we talk? Communication technologies, social informatics, and systemic change. Advances in Educational Administration, 8, 213-229, Elsevier Ltd.
• Nakamura, L. (2001). Head Hunting in Cyberspace: Identity tourism, Asian avatars and racial passing on the Web. Old City Publishing, Inc. The Women's Review of Books, 18(5), 10-11.
• National Association for Gifted Children. http://www.nagc.org
• National Association of School Psychologist. http://www.nasponline.org
• Nelson, A., Tu, T. L. N., & Hines, A. H. (2001). Technicolor: Race, Technology, and Everyday Life. New York University Press.
• Oliver M., & Carr, D. (2009). Learning in virtual worlds: Using communities of practices to explain how people learn from play. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), 444-457.
• Okuma-Nystrom, M. (2009). Ch. 2: Globalization, Identities, and Diversified School Education. In J. Zajda et al. (eds.), Nation-Building, Identity and Citizenship Education, 325-42. Retrieved June 19, 2009, http://books.google.com/books?id=WXLtU14ggwQC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=michiyo+kiwako&source=bl&ots=Ml8U8Qduql&sig=KycOrStYuyyPHEMyY6NQHzZCurU&hl=en&ei=jVxISoj8H4XMNYzGnZ8B&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3
• Parette, H. & Peterson-Karlan, G. (2007). Facilitating Student Achievement with assistive Technology. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 42(4), 387-97.
• Prensky, M. (2001) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
• Prensky, M. (2001) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, part 2: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-6.
• Price, W. (2008). The impending death of face to face instruction: notes from a neo-luddite. Education Week, 27(41), 24-25.
• Pudner, K. (2007). MySpace Friends and the Kingdom of Ends. Philosophy of Education Yearbook, 273-81. Retrieved June 10, 2009, from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/results/results_single.jhtml;hwwilsonid=HIUR513ER2IDTQA3DILCFGGADUNGIIV0
• Ramirez, A. & Zhang, S. (2007). When Online Meets Offline: The Effect of Modality Switching on Relationship Communication. Communication Monographs, 74(3), 287-310.
• Rich, A. (1994). Notes toward a politics of location. In Blood, Bread, and Poetry (pp. 210-231). W. W. Norton & Co. (Original work published 1984)
• Ritchie, M. (2009). Chirping about Twitter. Times Education Supplement, 4836, 18-21.
• Roach, R. (2001). Sounding the Alarm on Electronic Discrimination. Black Issues in Higher Education, 18(7), 34.
• Schopflin, G. (2001). The Construction of Identity. Retrieved June 18, 2009, from http://www.nt.tuwien.ac.at/nthft/temp/oefg/text/wiss_tag/Beitrag_Schopflin.pdf
• Schwarzer, D., Haywood, A. and Lorenzen, C. (2003). Fostering Multiliteracy in a Linguistically Diverse Classroom. National council of Teachers of English. Retrieved June 18, 2009 from, http://teachnet.edb.utexas.edu/~david_schwarze/Language%20arts.pdf
• Smith, F. (2007). My school meet MySpace: Social networking at school. Edutopia, April, 2007.
• Simmons, R. (2007). Why 2007 is not 1984: A broader perspective on technology’s effect onprivacy and fourth amendment jurisprudence. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 97(2), 532-568.
• Spiekermann, S. & Cranor, L. (2009). Engineering privacy. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 35(1), 67-82.
• Stevenson, N. (2003). Cultural citizenship: cosmopolitan questions. England: University Press
• Subrahmanyam, K., Smahel, D., & Greenfield, P. (2006). Connecting developmental constructions to the internet: Identity presentation and sexual exploration in online teen chat rooms [Electronic version]. Developmental Psychology, 42(3), 395-406.
• Suler, J. (2002). Identity management in cyberspace, Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 4, 455-460.
• Sullivan, P. (2002). “It’s easier to be yourself when you are invisible”: Female college students discuss their online classroom experiences [Electronic version]. Innovative Higher Education, 27(2), 129-144.
• Tallim, J. (2001). Reviews Professional Materials. [Review of the book What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy]. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. Retrieved from, http://www.reading.org/Publish.aspx?page=JAAL-48-2-Prof_mat.html&mode=retrieve&D=10.1598/JAAL.48.2.9&F=JAAL-48-2-Prof_mat.html&key=D75E9C4D-6EC1-4E14-8580-15BB492B50E6.
• The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.
• Thomas, J. (2007). Social networking sites effects’ on relationships among college students.Retrieved June 3, 2009, from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/393599/social_networking_sites_effect_on_relationships_pg14.html?cat=9.
• Tiech, A., Frankel, M., Kling, R., Lee, Y. (1999). Anonymous communication policies on the Internet: results and recommendations of the AAAS conference. The Information Society, 15, 71-77.
• Tolan, D. (2007). Making visible the invisible. Online Classroom, July, 2007, 7-8.
• Turkle, S. (1995) Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. Simon & Schuster New York.
• Tynes, B. M. (2007). Role taking in online “classrooms”: What adolescents are learning [Electronic version]. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1312-1320.
• Weiland, S. (2008). Online abilities for teacher education: The second subject in distance learning. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2008 ,3995-4001. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved May 27, 2009, from http://www.editlib.org/d/27877/proceeding_27877.pdf
• Weinberger, D. (2004, November 14). Everything is Miscellaneous. Lecture presented at Library of Congress. Accessed on YouTube.
• Wellman, B. (2005). Community: From neighborhood to network. Communication of the ACM, 48(10), 53-55.
• Whittock, J. (2009). Twitterati in the academy. Times Higher Education, 1894, 20.
• Williams, B.T. (2008). “Tomorrow will not be like today”: Literacy and identity in a world of Multiliteracies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. International Reading Association, 682-688. Retrieved June 30, 2009, from EBSCO database.
• Young, J. R. (2001, September). Scholars question the image of the internet as a race-free utopia. The Chronicle of Higher Education, A48.

Additional Links

• Accessible Technology
• Assistive Technology Partners
• Education World: Technology in the Classroom Center
• Edutopia Video Library
• Family Village School
• Future of Online Learning
• Technology, Education, Design (TED): Ideas Worth Spreading
• Using Technology in the Classroom
• Your Child with Learning Difficulties