Vella, Anthony Joseph. "A
Digital Identity: creating uniqueness in a new contextual domain." E-Learning
and Digital Media 10.3 (2013): 285-293.
|
|
Vella, A. J. (2013). A Digital
Identity: creating uniqueness in a new contextual domain. E-Learning and
Digital Media, 10(3), 285-293.
SUMMARY/RESPONSE: Qualitative study of six alumni of
the Australian secondary school system and their use of social media. Study of
participants is scanty, with use of single quotations from each participant.
Overall, as an article based on Vella’s thesis minor, the work shows a scholar
still in development. More theoretical than qualitative, though the theories
are not fully developed. Starts with Gee’s theory of Discourse in Social Linguistics and Literacies: ideology
in discourse, which Vella defines as situational
identity projection. He writes that Discourse, “a person considers not only
what they say or act and how they would say or act it, but also what they are and
what they do while they say or act” (285). Rather than going back and reading
this Gee article, I’d recommend looking at Gee’s later work on “semiotic
domains” in What Video Games have to
Teach us about Learning and Literacy.
I was bothered by the writer’s assumption that there
was the digital and the “real” world, a dichotomy that he did not develop or
theorize. I think it’s possible to so argue; the writer simply didn’t make the
effort to do so. I would find it more productive to focus on something like a William James's concept of “experience”
which can be just as real in dreams, stories, visions, as in “reality.” In
other words, we have to ask ourselves how digital reality, and thus digital
identity, are different from and the same as any other identity before we can
ask how we might use both in our teaching and scholarship. I was, however,
intrigued by Vella’s phrase, the “age of participation” (291). This suggests a
basic difference between the age of print media (as well as TV and movies) and digital media. One insists
on observation, the other invites participation. The idea of participation in
media is intriguing.
Here's the problem with the writer's argument. If 'reality' is real in a way digital is not, then digital is not participatory; it is only observational. One way I can think about the difference is undergraduate and graduate courses. Undergraduate courses, particularly lecture courses, have a minimum level of participation. Graduate courses are all about participation--or should be. In graduate classes we read, not as consumers but, in dialogue with texts. We read and then write in response. We discuss, argue, mull over, the ideas of others. The difference between participation and observation in a class is further complicated when the class is digital. I admit, I have spent significant time thinking about how to increase participation in this class. If the digital isn't 'real' I'm in trouble.
QUOTATIONS:
“The digital world has created a
new domain separate and yet embedded within several aspects of our lives - a
domain where one can create an identity as one uses those technological
features and contributes to the digital world, whether one knows it or not”
(286).
“Allows them to tell their story in
ways which were not possible before” (286). I wonder how much digital identity
creation is or is not story.
“Monette et al (2002) find that
this behaviour allows a profile to be constructed in order for the
individual to make sense of their
world, in a similar way to how someone identifies with their
football team or organisations that
they associate with. Now, whilst reasons for choosing a football team or
organisation may be transparent, what is distinctive to the digital context is
the greater choice and management. In the real world it’s harder to hide who we
are; sometimes things are said too rashly and without thinking, but if you are
texting or typing you have the chance to think about what you are going to say;
however, if you like something that people you associate with dislike, you can
find others online and discuss the topic with them” (291).
“Lecturing on the subject, Gee
(2006) argued that a participant of digital technology is allowed to become a
producer, where they can contribute to the environment, as opposed to merely
being a consumer, where they just consume content” (291).
CITATIONS:
Girvan,
C. & Savage, T. (2010) Identifying an Appropriate Pedagogy for Virtual
Worlds: a communal constructivism case study, Computers and Education,
55(1), 342-349.
