Summary of Lecture: Political possibilities and the internet
* Defining democracy: The way a citizen interacts with the collective. Decisions made in parliament affect day to day life.
* Two ways new communication technologies and politics interact:
1. Cyber politics and democracy (related to the digital divide)
2. Digital divide
*Political hierarchy in websites/online sites and games (such as second life)
*Political campaigns use the internet to spread their message (e.g.- Obama and Kevin Rudd campaign)
* Understanding the difference between a scientific opinion poll (represents a level of participation) and a voluntary poll in a political vote.
* Twitter and new technologies have introduced a degree of transparency in the party room (attracting an audience who are interested in party decisions and results).
* What is the citizen of a new media politics- the “future citizen”? The skills of getting in and finding information and getting your message across are the skills of a hacker (computer expert). The hacker produces the result they want to produce. To do this they use persistence, a willingness to engage the machine, a capability to utilise skills in order to produce a result (to be an active citizen).
* The internet allows us to have one on one conversations (however take on a degree of permanency).
*Cyberpunk- form of science fiction emerged in the 1980’s. As an alternative to space opera (foundation trilogy, star wars etc). Outlines a world where computers communicate with other computers- set in the future. Themes include: technology and methology, utopia and dystopia, cities as machines, technological change and the shift from moderism to postmodernism.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Tutorial Task Six- Assignment Research
Research Question
Understanding the pros (educational purposes) and cons (social development consequences of violent video games) of children using video games.
1. Video games in education
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:_nAv6JzRCCAJ:scholar.google.com/+social+consequences+of+video+games+and+online+games&hl=en&as_sdt=2000
This article examines the history of games in educational research, and argues that the cognitive potential of games have been largely ignored by educators (making it a educational benefit). Contemporary developments in gaming, particularly interactive stories, digital authoring tools, and collaborative worlds, suggest powerful new opportunities for educational media.
2. Playing violent video games
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WH0-4B9D74R-1&_user=79777&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1114721767&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000006418&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=79777&md5=97f0e1775b42fe2246c1eec08df01a6a
This article presents a brief overview of existing research on the effects of exposure to violent video games. An updated meta-analysis reveals that exposure to violent video games is significantly linked to increases in aggressive behaviour, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, and cardiovascular arousal, and to decreases in helping behaviour.
3. Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggressive Behavior, Aggressive Cognition, Aggressive Affect, Physiological Arousal, and Pro social Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Scientific Literature.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/40063648
This article examines (through meta-analysis) the idea that violent video games increase aggressive behaviour in children. By looking at studies that have researched this topic the article concludes that violent video games does in face increase aggressive behaviour and decrease pro social behaviours.
4. The effects of violent video games on aggression
http://www.psych.ubc.ca/~jeremy/Sherry.pdf
Looking at a variety of empirical research, this article looks at research concerning the consequences of violent video games in children. Results suggest that there is a smaller effect of violence in video games on aggression, than first thought (TV is more responsible for aggression in children).
5. Video games and education
http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/960000/950583/p10-de_aguilera.pdf?key1=950583&key2=0883659521&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=65670857&CFTOKEN=63016835
But the reaction of many authorities and the majority of educators have been to discredit video games by assuming their negative effects. After more than two decades of research, however, many studies have been published that have gradually led to a more complex, nuanced, and useful understanding of video games. This article focuses on one of the most interesting alternative perspectives that of their educational potential as teaching and learning tools.
6. Failure to connect: How computers affect our children’s mind, for better or worse
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20439670
This article examines how computers affect children both cognitively and socially and compares the two. It looks into how video games can be beneficially for educational purposes but detrimental in social development purposes.
Understanding the pros (educational purposes) and cons (social development consequences of violent video games) of children using video games.
1. Video games in education
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:_nAv6JzRCCAJ:scholar.google.com/+social+consequences+of+video+games+and+online+games&hl=en&as_sdt=2000
This article examines the history of games in educational research, and argues that the cognitive potential of games have been largely ignored by educators (making it a educational benefit). Contemporary developments in gaming, particularly interactive stories, digital authoring tools, and collaborative worlds, suggest powerful new opportunities for educational media.
2. Playing violent video games
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WH0-4B9D74R-1&_user=79777&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1114721767&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000006418&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=79777&md5=97f0e1775b42fe2246c1eec08df01a6a
This article presents a brief overview of existing research on the effects of exposure to violent video games. An updated meta-analysis reveals that exposure to violent video games is significantly linked to increases in aggressive behaviour, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, and cardiovascular arousal, and to decreases in helping behaviour.
3. Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggressive Behavior, Aggressive Cognition, Aggressive Affect, Physiological Arousal, and Pro social Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Scientific Literature.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/40063648
This article examines (through meta-analysis) the idea that violent video games increase aggressive behaviour in children. By looking at studies that have researched this topic the article concludes that violent video games does in face increase aggressive behaviour and decrease pro social behaviours.
4. The effects of violent video games on aggression
http://www.psych.ubc.ca/~jeremy/Sherry.pdf
Looking at a variety of empirical research, this article looks at research concerning the consequences of violent video games in children. Results suggest that there is a smaller effect of violence in video games on aggression, than first thought (TV is more responsible for aggression in children).
5. Video games and education
http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/960000/950583/p10-de_aguilera.pdf?key1=950583&key2=0883659521&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=65670857&CFTOKEN=63016835
But the reaction of many authorities and the majority of educators have been to discredit video games by assuming their negative effects. After more than two decades of research, however, many studies have been published that have gradually led to a more complex, nuanced, and useful understanding of video games. This article focuses on one of the most interesting alternative perspectives that of their educational potential as teaching and learning tools.
6. Failure to connect: How computers affect our children’s mind, for better or worse
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20439670
This article examines how computers affect children both cognitively and socially and compares the two. It looks into how video games can be beneficially for educational purposes but detrimental in social development purposes.
Lecture Six Summary
Summary of Lecture: Video game studies including arcade games, consol games, hand help consol’s (such as the iphone), computer games, text based games and multiple user online games.
* Video games, like the internet, are related to military use (such as simulators for military training).
* Late 90’s early 00’s when video games became popular and studies “begun” (such as the lasting effect of video games, persistent effect, new form of cultural practice, new form of social media etc.)
*Narratologists- study the narrative of video games (what stories video games tell us) Janet Murray.
* Ludology- Study of games (the game aspects, the play aspects- what attracts us to video games)
* A new form emerging in platform studies- each platform came from a specific time (so therefore cultural impacts). Historically some approach may be lost and platform studies have a lot to teach “up and coming” video game technicians.
*Video games can be seen as a media of communication and expression
* Study of particular designers who become popular and have a “rock star” following.
* Virtual philosophy connected to video games- how are games real and how are games virtual?
* Video games, like the internet, are related to military use (such as simulators for military training).
* Late 90’s early 00’s when video games became popular and studies “begun” (such as the lasting effect of video games, persistent effect, new form of cultural practice, new form of social media etc.)
*Narratologists- study the narrative of video games (what stories video games tell us) Janet Murray.
* Ludology- Study of games (the game aspects, the play aspects- what attracts us to video games)
* A new form emerging in platform studies- each platform came from a specific time (so therefore cultural impacts). Historically some approach may be lost and platform studies have a lot to teach “up and coming” video game technicians.
*Video games can be seen as a media of communication and expression
* Study of particular designers who become popular and have a “rock star” following.
* Virtual philosophy connected to video games- how are games real and how are games virtual?
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Tutorial Task Five: MSN, FACEBOOK (and other social networking websites) VS VIRTUAL REALITY
What is different about the kinds of socialising that happens in these spaces?
On social networking websites a user uploads video’s and pictures of themselves and communicates with others via status updates and wall posts. If you know the user (which I ALWAYS do if they are a facebook friend), you can be certain that the photos/video’s/communications of/with that friend, may portray a sliver of “real reality” (“real reality” being the experiences and events occurring in everyday life). Consequently, socialising on these social networking sites runs parallel to “real reality” because one, you know the people you are communicating with and two, you portray real photos/video’s/communications of yourself (it may not be a correct depiction, but because you know who you are communicating with, certain aspects are correct). Because this is the case, social skills are still required to communicate with friends- this being a major difference between social networking websites and virtual reality sites.
Virtual reality takes users one step closer to “made-up reality” (“made-up reality” being the experiences and events you wish/fantasise to occur). In virtual reality, such as Second Life, you create a character by choosing a certain appearance (such as physical features and clothes) and you use this character to communicate with other characters. Virtual reality does not allow you to control the type of people that enter “your” world, this being a big difference compared to social networking websites. The majority of the time you are communicating with people you don’t personally know, so certain social skills are not required when socialising. In a sense you can be/act/say/look how you want, in other words, you are making your own reality. This is not possible on social networking websites (unless you are friends with people you don’t personally know). I personally found it difficult to communicate, let alone socialise, on these virtual reality sites because there was no common ground and it was hard to be personal with other characters/users that you don’t personally know (and quite frankly, who are talking about random things!)
In summary, I personally believe that social networking websites facilitates users to communicate/socialise in a more realistic (and trustworthy) manner, compared to that of virtual reality.
On social networking websites a user uploads video’s and pictures of themselves and communicates with others via status updates and wall posts. If you know the user (which I ALWAYS do if they are a facebook friend), you can be certain that the photos/video’s/communications of/with that friend, may portray a sliver of “real reality” (“real reality” being the experiences and events occurring in everyday life). Consequently, socialising on these social networking sites runs parallel to “real reality” because one, you know the people you are communicating with and two, you portray real photos/video’s/communications of yourself (it may not be a correct depiction, but because you know who you are communicating with, certain aspects are correct). Because this is the case, social skills are still required to communicate with friends- this being a major difference between social networking websites and virtual reality sites.
Virtual reality takes users one step closer to “made-up reality” (“made-up reality” being the experiences and events you wish/fantasise to occur). In virtual reality, such as Second Life, you create a character by choosing a certain appearance (such as physical features and clothes) and you use this character to communicate with other characters. Virtual reality does not allow you to control the type of people that enter “your” world, this being a big difference compared to social networking websites. The majority of the time you are communicating with people you don’t personally know, so certain social skills are not required when socialising. In a sense you can be/act/say/look how you want, in other words, you are making your own reality. This is not possible on social networking websites (unless you are friends with people you don’t personally know). I personally found it difficult to communicate, let alone socialise, on these virtual reality sites because there was no common ground and it was hard to be personal with other characters/users that you don’t personally know (and quite frankly, who are talking about random things!)
In summary, I personally believe that social networking websites facilitates users to communicate/socialise in a more realistic (and trustworthy) manner, compared to that of virtual reality.
Lecture Five Summary
Summary of Lecture: Understanding virtual philosophy. How we think about reality, in particular, virtual reality.
The theory of virtual reality:
* “What is reality”- the Matrix touches upon this (virtual reality)
* Plato’s main idea (allegory): prisoners (people in everyday life) are looking at the cave, the fire of life is behind the cave (the essences of life), this casts a shadow that we can see-this shadow is reality.
* Guy Debord- Part of a movement that says, we now live in a life that is a spectacle (we want to be entertained, we don’t want to live in reality).
* Umberto Eco- Hyper reality, the reality that we live in is NOT real, it is hyper real.
*Jean Baudrillard- A way we can think about an idea that says that computers are a way of reality (for example, cyberspace)
*William Gibson- Cyberspace
* Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari- Bringing everything together, concerning the above examples. Everyday life- a flow, a series of moments. Actual reality-our experiences of the world that moves through the passage of time. Every single moment in time there are different paths (the virtual reality). This theory draws from early quantum theory. This theory would say that the internet is not virtual reality, because it is part of our everyday life.
Documentary-Online virtual worlds
*Second life- life beyond reality
* Virtual worlds are worlds on the internet that aid us to make new friends, do new things etc. There is always someone there is second life.
* Personalising the character makes users bond with their character
* At any one time, 20 000 people are logged onto this “reality”
* The third parties are developing the content
* People pay real money for different things in this virtual reality- sex, dresses etc.
* Business opportunities in these worlds e.g.- sport (tennis opens)
* Prototype of a whole new way of behaving
* Sale of virtual land- intellectual privacy rights. Ailin Greaf is a virtual property developer.
The theory of virtual reality:
* “What is reality”- the Matrix touches upon this (virtual reality)
* Plato’s main idea (allegory): prisoners (people in everyday life) are looking at the cave, the fire of life is behind the cave (the essences of life), this casts a shadow that we can see-this shadow is reality.
* Guy Debord- Part of a movement that says, we now live in a life that is a spectacle (we want to be entertained, we don’t want to live in reality).
* Umberto Eco- Hyper reality, the reality that we live in is NOT real, it is hyper real.
*Jean Baudrillard- A way we can think about an idea that says that computers are a way of reality (for example, cyberspace)
*William Gibson- Cyberspace
* Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari- Bringing everything together, concerning the above examples. Everyday life- a flow, a series of moments. Actual reality-our experiences of the world that moves through the passage of time. Every single moment in time there are different paths (the virtual reality). This theory draws from early quantum theory. This theory would say that the internet is not virtual reality, because it is part of our everyday life.
Documentary-Online virtual worlds
*Second life- life beyond reality
* Virtual worlds are worlds on the internet that aid us to make new friends, do new things etc. There is always someone there is second life.
* Personalising the character makes users bond with their character
* At any one time, 20 000 people are logged onto this “reality”
* The third parties are developing the content
* People pay real money for different things in this virtual reality- sex, dresses etc.
* Business opportunities in these worlds e.g.- sport (tennis opens)
* Prototype of a whole new way of behaving
* Sale of virtual land- intellectual privacy rights. Ailin Greaf is a virtual property developer.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Lecture Four Summary
Summary of Lecture: Community, collaboration and choice. Understanding the themes of free culture and free society
*Understanding copyright: Legal protection of our work. Protects creativity against unauthorised use.
*CreativeCommon.org- non-profit organisation that is dedicated to promoting reasonable copyright (makes licenses and tools) free service that outlines the prerequisites for your own copy right (lets other people know exactly what they can use of your work) e.g.- non-commercial, no derivates and share alike.
* Where did the philosophy of the creative commons come from? The free software movement!
* Free/Libre, Open Source Software (FLOSS)
* Sharing open source code is like sharing recipes with your friends (in the computer community, people shared software- the bazaar style!) using proprietary software is like signing an agreement that says you can’t tell your friends how to make nice food!
* Bill Gates went against this in the 70’s and decided to sell his software.
* Richard Stallman started the free software foundation in 1981 (turning copyright with full rights reserved, into relaxing copyright from software). Free open source software is the “gears” of the internet. In 1988 the word free, was changed to open- becoming more attractive to business people (emphasis on open NOT free).
* Free software principles: 0, 1, 2 and 3.
*GNU public license- to enforce the four freedoms of free software (legally binding licence)
* Proprietary (windows, apple) verse Open Software (Firefox, open office)
* Proprietary- closed source (source code is confidential) as staff are paid to develop software.
* Free Software-open source, source code freely available, anyone can see it, use it etc, developed by teams (has a community feel)
* GNU/Linux- an operating system (just like windows etc) and can be used instead of proprietary software.
Community: People who want to share and do good/better things
Collaboration: Working together (not going against copyright)
Choice: Choosing between free software and propriety software- don’t be fooled!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)