In my 6-year academic career so far, this is my 3rd rejection. All good. Just keeping count
(photo by Cooper 2007)
Just re-read a paper I co-authored: “… avatars’ actions, which are the reflection of human-user actions…” Hmm. In what ways are avatars’ actions the reflection of human actions? How would educators explain this ‘reflection’ (e.g. because psychological processes are similar)?
Here’s the context of my doubting my previous claims: “… no Virtual Tutoring System evaluates the learner’s action-based performance automatically” (Fardinpour & Heinz, 2012). If we assess the learner’s action-based performance (undertaken with the learner’s avatar), we make the learner accountable for her avatar-based performance. On what grounds do we make the learner accountable for her avatar’s performance?
Just reading Charteris-Black (2006) and noting the possible metaphors used by educators to conceive “avatar”:
- Neutral medium?
- Inanimate object / animate being?
- As a pedagogical opportunity (+ve) / disaster (-ve)?
- Students as controllers / controlled?
- Alternative metaphors: (expressing reciprocity)?
I’m re-reading De Bono’s Simplicity. His argument that perception is more important than logic in problem-solving resonates with me. Looking for a more useful way to perceive / conceive learning with an avatar is the main aim of my PhD (at least, for now).
Watched a programme on BBC Knowledge yesterday where Professor Marcel Just was explaining how, in his fMRI studies, human beings represent concepts differently based on our embodied interactions with the objects (e.g. we SWING hammers; we EAT grapes). The differences were so distinct that his computer program could predict what the TV presenter was thinking about (e.g. “hammer” or “grape”). Fascinating.
(photo by Anders Illum)
Phil, Judith, and I just presented a webinar on assessing dispositional behaviours within the Otago Virtual Hospital. “Well-orchestrated, well-prepared and well-integrated” was how one participant evaluated the webinar