Category: Ashley Dischinger

Going into this week, I’ll be honest- I was a little skeptical about the legitimacy of augmented reality, especially since there seems to be an abundance of hype but a scarcity of execution in consumers’ day-to-day lives. But our Skyping session on Monday put my skepticism to rest. Whurley actually touched on many of the augmented reality-related issues that I was considering while writing my framing questions for the week.

With the limited knowledge on the subject that I possessed at the time, I wasn’t sure how augmented reality was being incorporated into various sectors of society, outside of the superficial sports broadcasting examples that were given on Wikipedia. We didn’t exactly touch on the ways that augmented reality is incorporated into educational methods (maybe because it hasn’t yet reached that sector?) but we did discuss how professional organizations are using these new technologies. For instance, the smartphone apps that allow users to scan the streets before them to locate the nearest gym, restaurant, drug store, etc almost give these local businesses free advertising, in a sense- albeit without any effort on the part of the local business.

Regarding less trivial matters, it was really interesting to hear about how the military is using augmented reality-enhanced devices for a variety of uses. We hear all the time that the military utilizes advanced technologies that are way ahead of the game, in terms of what’s available to the average citizen for everyday use… but it never fails to blow my mind that military personnel have been using augmented reality to protect our country for years before I, and probably many others, even knew such a concept existed. On the other hand, it was slightly alarming to find out that military officials in the United States can remotely control weapon detonations across the world with little more than the click of a button. Sure, the technology behind augmented reality seems to present many benefits- the military can carry out attacks without putting their lives in harms way. I also think that the power that is synonymous with such advanced technologies should be exercised with great care and control. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if our enemies had access to such tools. While new technologies such as augmented reality-based devices are certainly exciting, they also raise further questions involving appropriate uses that will only continue to benefit our society as a whole.

1. The Wikipedia entry on augmented reality mentioned ways in which it is being incorporated into sports entertainment, advertising and even education. What are some of the more specific ways that augmented reality is (or can be) incorporated into education?

2. Augmented reality is listed as a method of enhancing collaborative efforts. Has this been applied to business conferences, non-profits, or other professional organizations?

3. One of the projected obstacles to the success of augmented reality is the high cost factor. What are potential ways to combat the current high cost, and are these realistic goals for the near future? Or is augmented reality likely to fuel a technological divide?

Prior to discussing the many issues tied to virtual worlds, I posed some questions about the relevance of these virtual worlds to the professional world of the future. While it’s interesting to speculate the potential pros that virtual worlds have to offer the workplaces of tomorrow, I think an even more pressing issue is the impact of virtual worlds on our present society. Programs such as SecondLife failed to revolutionize the interactive entertainment industry to the degree that many predicted. Still, these virtual worlds have had an undeniable impact on a significant number of lives.

I keep returning to the video clip we watched in class, in which a mother and her teenage son were featured in a “virtual world addiction” spotlight. The teenage son admitted to playing World of Warcraft up to 16 hours a day (16 hours?!) Virtual gaming addiction is a harsh reality among virtual world participants. This isolated anecdote certainly reflects an issue that affects a larger population, and highlights many underlying issues surrounding the realm of virtual worlds. Initially, you want to write off this addicted teen as an isolated member of society, as he spends the entirety of his day sitting in front of the computer screen. He is even so engulfed in his alternative world that he fails to raise his eyes from the screen throughout the entirety of the interview. Every sign points to an isolated member of society. Yet, when asked about this point, he says he doesn’t feel like he is missing out on life because his virtual world allows him to “explore new places” and “meet new people.” Touché. Along with the prevalence of “exploration” and “friending” within social networks, is our society slowly moving towards a preference of online, virtual interaction? To play devil’s advocate, maybe those who choose to spend the majority of their lives within their virtual worlds are really no different than those who have never touched a video game or computer in their lives.

It’s issues such as this that bring me back to a point Derek made in class: we have to look at these issues beyond what we see on the surface, in order to recognize that they are much more complex than we may think. On the surface, video game addicts are easily labeled as “lazy” or “anti-social” or “geeks.” But perhaps the constant interaction with other players around the world, and the exploration of new (virtual) places makes these participants even less isolated than the truly isolated members of society who practice no form of social interaction whatsoever. Regardless, the level of engagement of virtual worlds, though still difficult for me to relate to, could point to a very real form of human interaction.

In the introduction of “Why Virtual Worlds Can Matter,” the authors write that virtual worlds present a social space that can allow participants to engage in coordinated actions. Going beyond the realm of games, in theory, it seems like professional entities could benefit greatly from functioning within a virtual world- interaction could occur without location limitations, group work would be highly collaborative and creative ideas could be easily shared and built upon. In one of my undergraduate classes, we even discussed how some large corporations are dipping into virtual worlds like Second Life to conduct business meetings. But if this tool is indeed beneficial, as the article suggests, why haven’t more professionals turned to virtual worlds to enhance their business practices? Are virtual worlds still mostly limited to gamers who utilize it for strictly entertainment purposes? The article concludes that, “What is happening in the games of today is, we believe, a fair predictor of what will be happening in the workplaces and societies of tomorrow.” Is this due to the psychological impact that virtual worlds have on participants, as participants are encouraged to deeply engage with their peers in order to achieve a desired end result?

Earlier in the week I posted some questions regarding the relationship between education and interactive entertainment. Sure enough, there is a significant sector of the industry that is dedicated to the education of users (I read a blog that referred to this as “edutainment.”) Despite the monumental amounts of money driving the gaming industry, there are still games being produced that go beyond the mindless, violent themes with which they are often associated. In addition to educational benefits such as teaching math and science lessons to children in the form of gaming systems, there are studies that show interactive entertainment has the potential to impact the general motivation for learning. Upon reflection over the Wikipedia entry game studies, I find the social science approach fascinating.

The social science approach to game studies inevitably leads to the question: “What do video games do to people.” I can’t help but think of the people who were interviewed in the Frontline documentary that we watched in class. There was a woman who admitted to quitting her job, just so she was able to play her favorite video game full-time. There was also a couple who told the reporter they actually met online through the video game and were eventually married. We were even introduced to overseas rehab (rehab?!) centers for young children who were trying to break free of actual video game addiction.

Clearly, video games do a lot to people.

I think video games have the capacity to have different effects on different people- perhaps due to personality, environmental factors, etc. Still, it’s fascinating to consider the wide range of impact that interactive entertainment has on users. There is the extreme, where people are clearly so addicted that it results in the disruption of their every day lives. I have a difficult time relating to this, probably because my parents never allowed video games in our house when I was growing up. Instead, they encouraged my brother and I to stay active in sports and have “real”, for lack of a better word, interactions with our friends. I think the only way for me to relate to the need to constantly interact with a game is to compare my Internet usage. In this sense, I can understand how certain behaviors can be developed, including a subconscious dependence on the medium.

Still, I think it’s more important to focus on the benefits that the interactive entertainment industry has to offer. The Wikipedia entry on the social science approach to game studies also detailed some of the specific instances of games that are leveraged to encourage learning in a variety of interface forms, including challenge, fantasy, curiosity and control. I find it hopeful that these studies support the belief that video games can provide an appealing, alternative form of learning for younger generations. At the same time, when considering some of the addictive behaviors that result from video game use, perhaps the use of interactive entertainment for education still has the potential for negative side effects.

In the last unit, we discussed the relationship between education and interactivity. Video games have long been dealt a negative reputation to some degree, often labeled as a “waste of time.” However, the Wikipedia entries on video games alluded to the potential that interactive games hold to help students excel. When applying a humanities approach to game studies, what are some of the positive educational benefits of interactive entertainment? What are some, if any, educational gaming initiatives/programs that have been launched, and how have they positively impacted the performance of students in the classroom? The Wiki entry on the video game industry points out that this is a growing industry, raking in billions of dollars a year as of 2004. Does the video gaming industry as a whole seem to be more focused on the economics of the business, or is there also an emphasis on manufacturing worthwhile games with an educational purpose?

At the beginning of the week, I raised some framing questions from danah boyd’s studies. The central theme of my questions involved privacy concerns that arise from popular forms of social media- Facebook, in particular. Transparency is an especially pertinent topic when dealing with social media use among younger generations. In class we discussed the impact of Facebook’s privacy settings on users’ online behavior. With our generation’s online presence becoming increasingly important to our every day lives, it’s certainly an issue worth exploring. The online behavior and privacy settings (or lack thereof) of college students, in particular, have becoming unavoidable subjects of concern as these individuals look to enter the workforce. It’s something that I personally consider on a regular basis, even though our iMedia graduation remains months away. For instance, I’ve always kept strict privacy settings on my Facebook page, allowing only people I choose to friend to have access to my information page, photos, wall, etc. The only information that I allow to remain public is my name, profile picture and school. With this in mind, I’m conscious of the fact that there are other ways for computer-savvy individuals to access the other components of my profile. I carefully monitor the content that I post on my page, making sure that even if my profile was public by default, I don’t have published content that could potentially harm my chances at getting a job offer.

The potential for online profiles to become transparent at any time, even without our consent, is important for social media users to be aware of. I still think that users should have the power to choose the level of transparency of their own sites, but user ignorance can be extremely dangerous. Returning to the earlier question regarding the role of educators in the social media realm: it seems that one essential role is to ensure that students, especially high school and college-age, are well aware of these important issues of online privacy and the potential negative consequences. My undergraduate classes did a great job of helping me understand the implications of transparency within my online presence, the capabilities (and sometimes, limitations) of privacy settings and the overall power that a seemingly-simple social network, such as Facebook, can have on my overall reputation. I’m fortunate to have been educated in a way that allows me to make informed decisions about my online behavior. Still, I think many social media users of my generation lack the proper education that is almost necessary in these times. In the case of online privacy issues, ignorance is not bliss, and knowledge is certainly power.

Last spring I had the opportunity to live blog from the FutureWeb Conference, in which danah boyd led several sessions. She has a fascinating take on the impact of social networking, especially with younger generations. Many of the thoughts she shared last spring were reminiscent of her two studies that we are reading in this class.

1. boyd says the role between public and private is becoming increasingly blurred, especially within the realm of education. How is the role of the educator evolving to embrace the changes in social technologies that boyd discusses?

2. Many people argue for the necessity of “openness” online. How does this apply to social networking sites? The use of these sites implies the projection of personal data, often will relatively little control over the recipients of this information. To what degree are the teenagers in boyd’s studies concerned about the transparency of their networked presence?

3. On a similar note, with the new privacy concerns arising over the series of policy changes implemented by Facebook, as discussed in boyd’s “Facebook privacy settings: who cares?” introduction, how are younger users changing their privacy settings/online behavior in response? boyd cites recent Pew studies that prove the 18 to 29 year-old bracket immediately updated their privacy settings- but are these youth educated enough to understand the significance of such actions, or are they blindly following the crowd of users?

Earlier in the week, I posed some questions regarding the implications of the explosion of citizen journalism. I first asked if the increased role of amateur journalists would override the classic agenda setting theory. Traditional journalism valued the power that the news media had over the production and distribution of news. The old, one-way communications model gave all control to professionals, and left consumers of the news to passively absorb whatever stories journalists determined were the ones that people should be talking about. With the rise of citizen journalism, “ordinary” people are given the unprecedented opportunity to determine what news is worthy enough to be talked about. It seems like the current landscape of journalism points to a combination of professionals and news consumers having a hand in setting the agenda. Take CNN, for example: the new page on its website, known as “NewsPulse,” supports this new, fluid agenda setting theory. CNN still chooses which stories to publish and distribute on its site. At the same time, the hierarchy of stories is based on popularity with its readers. The stories are organized by a combination of total comments and reader feedback and the number of times the story has been shared on Facebook. This system allows the stories generating the most user conversation to rise to the top, while the stories the public determines are more trivial are buried at the bottom of the page. In this sense, the news media are still setting the initial agenda by publishing the stories to the site, but it then allows the agenda to change based on which topics are generating the most conversation among its readership. This implies that the audience is continuing to have a larger influence in determining what society talks about.

Likewise, this supports my second question about citizen journalists adapting the unofficial role of news editors, in terms of selecting what news stories take precedence and are re-worked. The gate-keeping process of journalism is certainly shifting from the hands of online editors and moderators to the general public. How does this influence democracy in journalism and promote transparency and civil engagement? We briefly touched on the impact of citizen journalism-influenced transparency when we discussed the Digg revolt. Digg users certainly exercised their civil engagement when directly affecting the decision-making process of what the site posted online. When users believed their freedom of speech was compromised, due to the censoring of what comments and feedback were published, it caused the media source to re-evaluate its role as editor. Citizen journalism has the power to bring light to stories and information that news media may skew or attempt to bury.

There is also something to be said for the blurring of the lines between op-ed material and hard news online, as citizen journalists become powerful contributors to the field. At the beginning of the week I questions whether journalism is starting to revolve around social commentary, as opposed to a strictly hard news value approach to content. After class discussion, I think the traditional value of hard news remains constant, but the presence of three-way communication within online forums is now a vital part of the conversation, and doesn’t necessarily reflect hard news value. The conversation among users and citizen journalists adds to the editorial content of the news site, thus promoting a mixture of opinion and objective news reporting within journalism.

1. Luke Goode defines citizen journalism in relatively loose terms, describing it as “a range of web-based practices whereby ‘ordinary’ users engage in journalistic practices… such as current affairs-based blogging, photo and video sharing, and posting eyewitness commentary on current events.” With these so-called ordinary users playing an increasing role in the production and distribution of news, is the validity of the classic agenda setting theory then overridden? What are the implications of the audience becoming the source of influence and determining what society talks about?

2. Likewise, citizen journalists are adapting the unofficial role of news editors, in terms of selecting what news stories take precedence and are re-worked. How does this impact democracy in journalism? Does transparency promote civil engagement to a higher degree? Or does it result in a more skewed/less unbiased version of the news agenda.

3. How is the line between op-ed and hard news becoming more blurred, in the event of amateur journalists posting content? Is journalism starting to revolve around social commentary, as opposed to traditional hard news values?