Digital image manipulation and avatar configuration ...

bs_bs_banner

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs doi: 10.1111/j.1471-3802.2012.01232.x

· Volume 12 · Number 4 · 2012

245–251

Digital image manipulation and avatar configuration: implications for inclusive classrooms

jrs3_1232

245..251

Jo Ann Oravec University of Wisconsin at Whitewater, USA

Key words: Avatars, inclusive classrooms, digital image modification, bullying, social media, identity

This paper outlines concerns for inclusive classrooms involving personal digital image modifications and selections, as well as avatar configurations. Classroom interactions incorporate various dimensions of personal appearance; however, educators try to make them primarily about knowledge and wisdom. Students in environments where they can interact with each other faceto-face are constantly immersed in issues involving their exterior manifestations. However, the utilisations of digital media in the classroom and in the online delivery of instruction are providing new ways of manipulating the digitised images of individuals, as well as their characteristic patterns of speech and motion. The rising popularity of avatars in education (such as in Second Life) also provides a new spectrum of representational choices. Individuals who reconstitute their images so as to appear more ‘normal’ may achieve results that are more problematic than liberating, however. Fostering the development of manipulated images and avatars for the purposes of educational interaction can also be construed as an attempt to ‘erase’ stigma and in effect disempower individuals, especially those with disabilities. Likewise, image modification can be incorporated into bullying initiatives as part of efforts to ridicule and marginalise. In endeavours to mitigate these problems, faculty and staff can model the creative and empowering use of digital image and avatar technologies while celebrating (and not eradicating) their own idiosyncratic personal characteristics.

Introduction This paper addresses a number of emerging issues related to personal representational choices in education, primarily in the arena of digital image manipulation and avatar configuration. Many educational participants have the means to construct and modify digital images of themselves, or in some ways alter their visual representations. With such software applications as Adobe Photoshop, individuals can remove aspects of their virtual appearance that they do not like and replace them with imagery they consider acceptable to themselves and others. At the simplest level, they

can experiment with changes in hair colour, tattoo placement, tanning levels and other physical attributes before exercising these options on their persons. Consider these descriptions of image enhancement procedures used at Sidcot School in North Somerset, UK: ‘. . . development of Photoshop Ping Pong (http:// www.photoshoppingpong.com) is a case in point. Anyone is free to register on the site, to find a partner against whom to play, and send an image in to get a game started. Participants in the game send a digital photo back and forth, altering the image each time, and creating a new challenge for response for the other players on the project. . . . The technique of scanning simple images evokes a newly sophisticated interpretation when paired with translucent materials and Photoshop filters. The concept of a self-portrait taken through an overhead lens gains dimension with digital layering.’ (Riddle, 2011, p. 19) This paper focuses on the aspects of such representational choices that can be liberating for individuals in inclusive classrooms, in which issues of image can be particularly sensitive. Students pick up clues about how their personal appearances are valued through the length and quality of eye contact they receive, as well as how they are spoken to by teachers, staff and other students (Taub, McLorg and Bartnick, 2009). Digital image modifications can give students (especially those who find their images problematic) new perspectives and new capabilities, as well as new venues for personal display. Some of these image modification exercises result in larger changes in behaviour and attitude as students try out new roles, as will be discussed in a later section. The paper also warns of dangers that can result when image-related choices reinforce current stereotypes as to what is desirable in human imageries, motions and sounds. Narratives are plentiful that describe the liberating experiences of individuals when they no longer have to deal with the stigma attached to their current bodily forms, as outlined in this paper. However, these narratives also serve to introduce the unsettling notion that the underlying forces related to the stigma are, to some extent, being reinforced rather than countered through image modification efforts. Scenarios of the future classroom can, indeed, involve network-disseminated composites of perfectly

© 2012 The Author. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2012 NASEN. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

245

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12 245–251

rendered, stereotypically attractive individuals or other chosen avatar characters rather than real-world (and very beautiful) faculty, staff and students. Utopian outcomes would have more authentic images produced through processes that are experimental, creative and humane.

would cease to be fashionable and perhaps not even exist in their current forms. The voluntary submissions of a great deal of personally identifiable information and images signal strong needs for sharing and reinforcement outside the boundaries of the physical world.

In the traditional face-to-face classroom, educational efforts are tightly coupled with the physical images of students. Students sit together and generally interact in ways in which they can see each other’s faces and bodies. Cursive handwriting also allows individuals some form of personalisation of their intellectual productions, although many teachers have worked mightily to foster handwriting standards (Vi, 2009). In traditional classrooms, these physical images of individuals can sometimes be problematic; the physical forms of individuals, as well as their ranges of motion, handwriting abilities and qualities of speech, can single them out for ridicule or systematic neglect (Snyder and Mitchell, 2006). In past centuries, participants in educational activities had few choices as to how to represent themselves in such contexts. A student generally looked at other students’ facial characteristics and heard voices from human mouths while interacting; the major presentational decisions they had to make were related to cosmetics, facial hair and eyeglasses. Educational institutions often provided dress codes and other policies that concerned student appearance and grooming with especially problematic cases of violation directed to administrators who made determinations as to whether an individual’s appearance somehow affected classroom interaction (Gable, 2002). Currently, a great deal of educational interaction is conducted through digital media contexts, with expanded capabilities for image and sound modification. Some of the applications of computing technology to the inclusive classroom are individual and personal in perspective, such as the use of personal digital assistants by students with autism spectrum disorder to increase independent task completion rates (described in Mechling, Gast and Seid, 2009). However, many educational computing applications have more fully social and networked underpinnings (such as ‘courseware’ platforms like blackboard), and a considerable number incorporate standard social media venues, such as Facebook and Twitter (Liu, 2010).

Forms of image modification have, indeed, been accessible for decades; it is common procedure to remove the ‘red eye’ from photographs or do other sorts of fine-tuning. However, the current range of presentational choices extends far beyond simple removal of blemishes, with sophisticated capabilities available for removing unwanted weight as well as reconstructing jawlines and overall head shapes. Facebook provides the means for students to upload photos and videos; the ‘profile’ section is designed to encourage individuals to provide a portrait. Modifications of these portraits have been criticised in the press as well as mocked by comedians: many people upload into their Facebook profiles old photos of themselves or greatly retouched images that construe them as being hairier, thinner or otherwise more stereotypically desirable. Portraits of individuals can be easily ‘aged’ as well, made either to look younger or older with the assistance of forensic imaging software; these capabilities are often utilised by police forces in crime investigation (Miller, 2004). With avatars, students can choose literally to be represented by entities of another species, represented by characteristics of their choice, including the ability to fly and transform themselves into other entities (Ananthaswamy, 2007). Students who have favourite comic book characters can choose to be associated with them in intimate ways through adopting the qualities of these characters in their own avatars.

Modes of virtual portraiture Social media, such as Facebook, YouTube, Myspace and Twitter, provide many new opportunities for students to construct, project and disseminate distinct digital images. Young people sending digital messages to a friend or to larger audiences can transmit enhanced photographs of themselves with exotic settings as backdrops or with a dramatic change of hair colour. Social media are designed to foster the multimodal expression of individuals and the facilitation of interaction. Submissions of personally identifiable material are largely voluntary and deliberate in these venues, although there have been many efforts to bully and harass through digital modification and dissemination of other individuals’ portraits (as will be discussed in an upcoming section). Without the unpaid efforts of vast numbers of individuals to incorporate their own personal expressions in social media (such as Facebook), the venues 246

Avatar configuration can empower students to create a persona that can differ in image, often dramatically, from that of their physical persona. Students can also develop different persona for various circumstances, or change their persona from moment to moment (Turkle, 1997; 2006), which can be an engrossing as well as time-consuming activity. The following narrative outlines some of the liberating aspects of avatars for individuals with disabilities: ‘Susan Tenby of the San Francisco-based non-profit group TechSoup.org, which provides affordable technology products to other non-profits, remembers the instant she realised Second Life’s potential for people with disabilities. “For me, the ‘Aha!’ moment was when I stumbled upon a [virtual] quadriplegics’ meeting,” she says. She found people there who were severely disabled in real life but able to walk or even fly in Second Life. “I said to myself, ‘Wait a minute, these are real people. This isn’t just a game.’ ” ’ (Ananthaswamy, 2007, p. 27) Educators have explored the capabilities of Second Life (created in 2003 by Linden Lab of San Francisco, California), as well as other immersive online environments for a variety of instructional and social purposes (Wankel and Kingsley, 2010). Second Life has even been used for teacher training in order to acclimate novice teachers to new © 2012 The Author. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2012 NASEN

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12 245–251

classroom environments (Sawchuk, 2011). Avatars provide more than a single image or snapshot; in Second Life, as well as in various video games, they represent individuals in ways that can also involve characteristic motions and sounds. A report on the use of Second Life in education, entitled ‘Zen and the Art of Avatar Maintenance’, lamented the amount of time and attention devoted by participants to configuring their avatars rather than to other forms of classroom interaction (Fearn, 2010). Turkle (2006) labels these experimental design efforts as ‘identity play’. The narrative below characterises one aspect of identity play, the creation of difference between the online realm and the physical environment: ‘I wonder if you. . . would “recognize” me if we met outside of cyberspace. By this, I don’t mean recognize me physically, of course – you probably have not seen my picture – I just mean that a personality can be quite different when channeled through a different format, and I might seem quite different than you imagine me.’ (Campbell, 2011, p. 1) Classroom applications of image manipulation and avatar configuration capabilities have shown promise in opening new vistas for the inclusive classroom. For example, Blane (2003) describes the use of such tools in Gadburn School (Glasgow, Scotland) for students with moderate learning difficulties. Image modification capabilities have been used in therapy (Broom, 2009; Nuñez, 2009), affording new ways for individuals to explore personal problems and selfimage issues. However, encouraging students to produce self-portraits that somehow recast or reframe aspects of what society labels as stigmatised can be problematic. Consider this simple scenario: students who wear thick corrective glasses are choosing images for their Facebook profiles. They can, indeed, choose to place digitally modified portraits of themselves on their profiles that do not incorporate these glasses, which is certainly their choice. However, if they are encouraged by teachers, staff or other students to produce images of themselves that are ‘free’ from their glasses (or to show them how they might look without the glasses), they are in effect being informed that their glasses are a stigma or at least receiving the insinuation that something is wrong with the way they look. They can be notified (however well meaning the intent) that they are ‘hiding behind their glasses’ when their glasses are, indeed, a critical aspect of their chosen self-image. Advice relayed in these decisive explorations of self-image via digital image modification can be critical to the construction of a student’s self-image. Association with particular avatars may also affect some kinds of behaviour, especially such aspects of social interaction as asking for information or directions (as explored in an experimental context by Lehdonvirta, Nagashima and Lehdonvirta et al., 2012). Photoshopping, makeovers and advertising from the perspectives of young people In many Western societies, digitally altered and airbrushed portraits are often emphasised in broadcast and popular media to the exclusion of more authentic human representations (van Dijck, 2008). A number of educators and advo© 2012 The Author. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2012 NASEN

cates for children have decried the ‘photoshopping’ of human images in advertising and textbooks to remove various kinds of stigma, including excess weight and facial blemishes (Mager and Helgeson, 2011; Rusted, 2007). Pictures of individuals used in magazines, billboards and online advertising are often retouched so as to remove any kind of features or colour tones that might be considered off-putting to potential viewers. Even pictures of young children are given such treatment, which has particularly salient moral concerns about child welfare. In commercial movie production, stereotypically attractive ‘stand ins’ are often pictured rather than the stars in certain critical shots involving body parts. The profit-making interests that fund these reconstructions of reality are often interested in encouraging the purchases of cosmetics, hair care chemicals and weight loss products, with large and highly lucrative industries devoted to these efforts (Mager and Helgeson, 2011). Individuals are being encouraged to be dissatisfied with their current image, and subsequently convinced to acquire substances that can link them more closely with the heavily modified human images presented to them. Modification of personal images certainly can be wrought through physical means as well as virtual ones. Cosmetic surgery is available for individuals who feel that their weight, nose or ear shape, or other aspects of physical status gives them a disadvantage. Although it is painful, timeconsuming and expensive, many individuals choose to take the step of physical modification in order to remove various stigmas concerning their physical characteristics. The fact that individuals have some capability to transform their personal images through clothing choices, changes of hair colour and length, and other less radical means has been reified in the notion of the ‘makeover’, in which experts provide assistance in revitalising personal appearance (Weber, 2009). However, rather than being construed as an offensive act, the makeover and other physical transformations are linked with the themes of rebirth and regeneration. In contrast with physical surgery, image modification through digital means appears highly humane. Image manipulation can be conducted by nearly any individual with access to computer capabilities and image enhancement software. Such capabilities have changed the use of photography in our lives: videos and photos were once considered as reliable ‘witnesses’ to human interaction. Today, they are widely recognised as malleable media that offer photographers considerable leeway in modification, leading to concerns about the trustworthiness of photographic accounts for many legal and scientific purposes (Chalfen, 2002; Cromey, 2010; Oravec, 1996). For example, photos can be easily reconstructed and enhanced to make it seem as if face-to-face meetings or encounters occurred that never transpired. The reverse is also the case, as some individuals remove photos of ex-family members from composite family photos after divorces, disownings or other disengagements (Oravec, 1998). Digital image modification can be a part of overall media literacy programs that equip students to interpret critically 247

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12 245–251

the information they receive in advertising, textbooks and billboards (Oravec, 1998; Vanmeenen, 2009). Advertising that incorporates models whose modified personal characteristics challenge the bounds of reality may, indeed, be lucrative but can be disconcerting for young people who need to determine their own authentic and empowering modes of self-representation. Teachers and staff can be instrumental in assisting students to find and construct images (whether digital or analogue) that are not manipulative and opportunistic in their purposes. Issues of personal appearance in education Educational institutions generally have some requirements for how individuals look, and can be expected to develop policy related to how they are represented in terms of digital imagery. Personal care and hygiene (including bathing), as well as choices of clothing, are sometimes problematic for schools as students explore choices of appearance, especially through adolescence. Bodily piercings as well as tattoos are certainly highly creative choices that students make about how they present themselves to the world. Many current education contexts are exploding with representational choices for individuals, many of which are in the realm of the virtual as well as the physical. Individuals have a range of choices to make in terms of how or whether they share their personal image, and the range of acceptable choices shifts dramatically over time. Stefanone, Lackaff and Rosen (2011) show that some indices of self-worth have correlates to the number of photos shared on social media web sites, with students who are satisfied with their appearance disseminating more photos. The notion that the physical classroom is the ‘frontstage’ of school life has often been explored by educational and social theorists (Goffman, 1971; Hogan, 2010). Increasingly, however, the focus of educational interaction is moving to social media, providing a growing assortment of such stages. Each of these new modes of interaction is acquiring new rules and social mores. Some unfortunate sets of rules and mores have emerged in the proliferation of the ‘pro-ana’ movement (Haas, Irr and Jennings et al., 2011), however. It has effectively used Facebook as well as an assortment of online chat rooms to build enabling support groups for individuals stricken with anorexia. Individuals in these groups exchange photographs chronicling their own weight loss as well as pictures of celebrities they consider appropriately thin. Since some of the photos of celebrities exchanged in these groups are heavily retouched, issues involving digital image manipulation loom large for these individuals. Intervention is needed in many schools and other settings that have growing numbers of young people starving themselves so as to conform physically to the doctored photos they exchange (as described in Sharpe, Musiat and Knapton et al., 2011). Schools are, at their root, a form of human association, and as such, they have generally played considerable roles in shaping and constraining the presentational choices available to individuals. These constraints can vary from formal dress codes to peer pressure. Uniforms, still common in 248

some school contexts, can greatly restrict these choices. However, rules and other constraints on how students, teachers and staff are allowed to portray themselves online have been slow to emerge. If individuals were entirely alike in their circumstances, representation would be unproblematic. However, social stigmas abound, rooted in economic and social circumstances, as well as superstition (Gergen, 2000). Goffman (1963; 1971) outlines how, in face-to-face interaction, individuals are generally afforded some means for strategically managing information about themselves related to various social stigmas (for example, concerning obesity). They are given some means to control what others know about them, often by the concealment of information or selective disclosure. Online interaction affords an even wider range of means for controlling such information disclosure. Educational institutions will soon need to decide how to shape the choices their participants have for self-imagery and personal disclosure so that they are empowering and liberating options. Image modification and bullying in educational contexts Bullying has become a major concern in nearly all kinds of school contexts, both physical and virtual (Bourke and Burgman, 2010). The term ‘cyberbullying’ has been widely used to refer to the sustained levels of online harassment that many students face (Levy, 2011). As discussed in previous sections, digital images can be modified in a variety of ways. Unfortunately, these capabilities can also equip those who wish to tease if not bully others (Namie and Namie, 2000). Rather than being removed, blemishes and other problematic aspects of appearance can be easily enhanced with digital modification, and used to caricature and humiliate individuals. Some of these bullying efforts have sexual themes, and the notion of ‘sexting’ has emerged as digital photos of bodily parts (some modified with software) are sent to others via mobile device. Cellphone cameras have been used in public places (including school gymnasiums) to take discomforting photographs that have subsequently been manipulated in ways that embarrassed their subjects (Smith, Mahdavi and Carvalho et al., 2008). Blackmailing people with unappealing photos of them or pictures of disconcerting incidents involving them has been a common ploy for the past century. However, these capabilities have taken on new dimensions with digital photography efforts that can affect, if not destroy, reputations. Educational institutions are increasingly developing policies related to the various kinds of social problems that digital media engender, especially in the realm of cyberbullying (Smith, Mahdavi and Carvalho et al., 2008). Policies concerning how individuals mock or tease each other via digital image manipulation have been much slower to emerge, however. The artistic liberties that are associated with photo manipulation efforts often make legislative or policy efforts problematic. Individuals sometimes applaud the technological savvy of those who can modify the images of others in this way rather than support the autonomy and empowerment of those portrayed. Celebrities have fought battles on these fronts for years because © 2012 The Author. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2012 NASEN

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12 245–251

of retouched photographs that portray them in unfortunate lights (Janangelo, 2010); however, they generally have large legal staffs on their sides to fight these issues, unlike the average student or teacher. Educational institutions need to provide support for victims when such bullying occurs. This support should include some technological help as well as psychological assistance; utilising the privacy settings and filtering mechanisms of social media venues can forestall some (but not all) of these problems. Students often utilise social media in settings that extend beyond the classroom (although some of the applications can be controlled so only school participants can access them); some of the bullying students encounter, including the distortion of their images, can originate from strangers. Policies that foster a student’s sense of privacy and informational control within the larger arena of social media are thus needed, as outlined below: ‘Talk to your students about what should be kept private. As adults, most of us instinctively know not to share our phone number and address with people we have never met. But there is often a disconnect between “in real life” and “online” for kids, tweens, and teens. They usually feel they know the people they are talking with, and so they share personal information. Many sites have privacy settings. Learn what these are and help kids (and parents) use them appropriately.’ (Ramig, 2009, p. 9) Issues of online privacy and information control are difficult to communicate even in corporate contexts, so slippages in terms of public contact are likely to occur. Bullying can be painful, whether the bully is a known commodity or an anonymous outsider, so teachers and staff should be vigilant for such instances and provide support. Often, taking proactive steps, such as creating ‘bully-free zones’ in online educational settings and fostering open discussion of bullying in social media, can be effective in mitigating or even preventing these problems in specific contexts (Levy, 2011). As more educational interaction becomes computerassisted, the issues outlined in this paper are having increasing salience for the everyday work of teachers and staff members. Teachers and staff members can model effective and authentic use of digital media modifications in their own efforts in portraiture. Many educators are interacting with students and their families in social media venues, so such modelling will be quite straightforward to arrange (Mazer, Murphy and Simonds, 2007). For example, teachers’ own Facebook profiles can have digital images that are genuine expressions and not entirely guided by what marketers dictate. They can engage in their own digital image modification and avatar configuration initiatives as starting places for experimentation and creativity, not as struggles to make their efforts conform to advertising images. Teachers and staff can be vigilant in how they advise students in their own labours in this regard as well. Portfolio development can in itself be a tool to ameliorate some of the problems in inclusive classrooms discussed in previous sections: Suarez (2010) explores the documentation of student videos, pictures and narratives in composite form as a means for © 2012 The Author. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2012 NASEN

reaffirming student successes for students with social interaction challenges. If students can view their images in positive contexts in such portfolio form, they may be less interested in modifying them in ways that conform to restrictive societal stereotypes. Teachers and staff members who are sensitive to these issues can also work to ensure that the images of students that are associated with their schools for publicity purposes are chosen for their authenticity and not just for their conformance to conventional standards of attractiveness. Wellmeaning school administrations have often selected images of stereotypically good-looking individuals for promotional materials so as to modify the images of their organisations; educational institutions have marketing initiatives just as other entities do, although these efforts are somewhat different in character (Rizvi and Khan, 2010). Issues involving race and ethnicity also come into play in the selection of images for educational publicity. The avatars developed by teachers and staff to deliver instruction in virtual worlds (as in Marino and Beecher, 2010) should also be configured in ways that are sensitive to these issues of stereotyping. The everyday personal decisions that individuals make in this regard in their own Facebook image choices or selections of avatars can serve to reinforce these unfortunate processes; educators will need to focus on a variety of levels in order to deal with these stereotyping issues. Some conclusions and reflections Digital image manipulation can be a venue for creative expression if not liberation. The phrase ‘on the Internet, no one knows you are a dog’ (originally associated with a New Yorker cartoon) became quite common in the 1990s as Internet capabilities became more widely available (Flint, 2009). The empowerment that digital media applications provide is obvious; it is very difficult to find fault with technologies that have assisted those with limited visual and auditory capabilities to participate more fully in educational interaction. However, digital image manipulation can also be used to bully individuals. It can also be used to shape students’ self-images in ways congruent with societal stereotypes rather than foster personal self-expression. Erasure of modified images and other altered personal traces from the Internet is also extremely difficult (Bilton, 2011), leaving those individuals who have been encouraged to make inadvertently personally demeaning choices or whose reputations have been damaged with very few options. Traditional modes of educational interaction (largely involving physical classroom or settings) have often placed faculty, staff and students in particular roles that were reinforced through their physical body images. Many children in traditional classrooms have been severely disenfranchised because of matters of appearance (Snyder and Mitchell, 2006). The current modes of interaction described in this paper, in contrast to those of previous eras, dramatically expand the variety of available representational forms in educational settings. They also provide new ‘frontstages’ for social and intellectual interaction in which new roles are available. The time and effort often involved in these 249

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12 245–251

choices have been an increasing concern, along with the increased vigilance needed to prevent and mitigate problems with bullying. Students, faculty and staff who focus on their online imagery can be diverting attention away from the curricular matters at hand, although as students become more skilled at image manipulation and avatar choice, some economies of time allocation may be achieved. Image modification efforts can have larger consequences for behaviour as well, as the example of the ‘pro-ana’ movement unfortunately demonstrates. Administrators, teachers and staff members can join larger public policy efforts to make the digital modification of imagery an empowering and creative activity rather than one that encourages inauthentic and conformist behaviour. Questions remain, however, as to what constitutes one’s ‘true self’ in online contexts (Tosun and Lajunen, 2009), as well as how digital image modification will affect social dynamics at larger levels. Educational institutions will need to face these issues squarely since they are related to the well-being of students in inclusive classrooms who can be especially sensitive to matters of appearance.

Address for correspondence Jo Ann Oravec, University of Wisconsin at Whitewater, 800 W. Main,Whitewater, WI 53190, USA. Email: [email protected]

References Ananthaswamy, A. (2007) ‘A life less ordinary offers far more than just escapism.’ New Scientist, 195 (2618), pp. 26–7. Bilton, N. (2011) Erasing an unflattering digital past. New York Times, April 1st, p. 6. Blane, D. (2003) ‘Pixel perfection.’ Times Educational Supplement, 4554, p. 23. Bourke, S. & Burgman, I. (2010) ‘Coping with bullying in Australian schools: how children with disabilities experience support from friends, parents and teachers.’ Disability & Society, 25 (3), pp. 359–71. Broom, K. (2009) ‘Shooting the subject: punctum and performance.’ European Journal of Psychotherapy & Counselling, 11 (1), pp. 101–8. Campbell, D. (2011) ABC’s and PhD’s: avatars – academic and otherwise. Inside Higher Education. http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/mama_phd/ abc_s_and_phd_s_avatars_academic_and_otherwise (accessed 21 June 2011). Chalfen, R. (2002) ‘Snapshots “r” us: the evidentiary problematic of home media.’ Visual Studies, 17, pp. 141–9. Cromey, D. W. (2010) ‘Avoiding twisted pixels: ethical guidelines for the appropriate use and manipulation of scientific digital images.’ Science and Engineering Ethics, 16 (4), pp. 639–67. 250

Fearn, H. (2010) ‘Sceptics start to see the other side of Second Life.’ Times Higher Education, 1956, p. 17. Flint, D. (2009) ‘Law shaping technology: technology shaping the law.’ International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 23 (1/2), pp. 5–11. Gable, E. (2002) ‘An anthropologist’s (new?) dress code: some brief comments on a comparative cosmopolitanism.’ Cultural Anthropology, 17 (4), pp. 572–9. Gergen, K. (2000) ‘The self in the age of information.’ The Washington Quarterly, 23 (1), pp. 201–15. Goffman, E. (1963) Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Goffman, E. (1971) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Penguin. Haas, S. M., Irr, M. E., Jennings, N. A. & Wagner, L. M. (2011) ‘Communicating thin: a grounded model of online negative enabling support groups in the pro-anorexia movement.’ New Media & Society, 13 (1), pp. 40–57. Hogan, B. (2010) ‘The presentation of self in the age of social media: distinguishing performances and exhibitions online.’ Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30 (6), pp. 377–86. Janangelo, J. (2010) ‘Life writing lite: Judy Garland and reparative rhetorics of celebrity life writing.’ College English, 73 (2), pp. 156–82. Lehdonvirta, M., Nagashima, Y., Lehdonvirta, V. & Baba, A. (2012) ‘The stoic male: how avatar gender affects help-seeking behaviour in an online game.’ Games and Culture, 7 (1). Levy, P. (2011) ‘Confronting cyberbullying.’ T H E Journal, 38 (5), pp. 25–7. Liu, Y. (2010) ‘Social media tools as a learning resource.’ Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 3 (1), pp. 101–14. Mager, J. & Helgeson, J. (2011) ‘Fifty years of advertising images: some changing perspectives on role portrayals along with enduring consistencies.’ Sex Roles, 64 (3/4), pp. 238–52. Marino, M. T. & Beecher, C. C. (2010) ‘Conceptualizing RTI in 21st-century secondary science classrooms: video games’ potential to provide tiered support and progress monitoring for students with learning disabilities.’ Learning Disability Quarterly, 33 (4), pp. 299–311. Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E. & Simonds, C. J. (2007) ‘I’ll see you on Facebook: the effects of computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, affective learning, and classroom climate.’ Communication Education, 56 (1), pp. 1–17. Mechling, L. C., Gast, D. L. & Seid, N. H. (2009) ‘Using a personal digital assistant to increase independent task completion by students with autism spectrum disorder.’ Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39 (10), pp. 1420–34. Miller, G. (2004) ‘The lost children.’ New Scientist, 184 (2467), pp. 12–3. Namie, G. & Namie, R. (2000) The Bully at Work. New York: Sourcebooks Inc. © 2012 The Author. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2012 NASEN

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12 245–251

Nuñez, C. (2009) ‘The self portrait, a powerful tool for self-therapy.’ European Journal of Psychotherapy & Counselling, 11 (1), pp. 51–61. Oravec, J. (1996) Virtual Individuals, Virtual Groups: Human Dimensions of Groupware and Computer Networking. New York: Cambridge University Press. Oravec, J. (1998) ‘Every picture tells a story: digital video and photography issues in business ethics classrooms.’ Teaching Business Ethics, 3 (3), pp. 269–82. Ramig, R. (2009) ‘Social media in the classroom.’ MultiMedia & Internet@Schools, 16 (6), pp. 8–10. Riddle, J. (2011) ‘Playing around with technology.’ Internet@Schools, 18 (3), pp. 16–20. Rizvi, S. & Khan, M. (2010) ‘The uniqueness of educational marketing.’ Journal of Economics and Engineering, 4, pp. 39–43. Rusted, B. (2007) ‘Image ethics in the digital age.’ Canadian Journal of Communication, 32 (2), pp. 315–8. Sawchuk, S. (2011) ‘Teaching avatars.’ Education Week, 4 (2), p. 4. Sharpe, H., Musiat, P., Knapton, O. & Schmidt, U. (2011) ‘Pro-eating disorder websites: facts, fictions and fixes.’ Journal of Public Mental Health, 10 (1), pp. 34–44. Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S. & Tippett, N. (2008) ‘Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils.’ Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49 (4), pp. 376–85. Snyder, S. L. & Mitchell, D. T. (2006) Cultural Locations of Disability. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

© 2012 The Author. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2012 NASEN

Stefanone, M. A., Lackaff, D. & Rosen, D. (2011) ‘Contingencies of self-worth and social-networkingsite behavior.’ Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14 (1/2), pp. 41–9. Suarez, S. (2010) ‘Show me again what I can do: documentation and self-determination for students with social challenges.’ Theory Into Practice, 49 (1), pp. 21–8. Taub, D. E., McLorg, P. A. & Bartnick, A. K. (2009) ‘Physical and social barriers to social relationships: voices of rural disabled women in the USA.’ Disability & Society, 24 (2), pp. 201–15. Tosun, L. & Lajunen, T. (2009) ‘Why do young adults develop a passion for Internet activities? The associations among personality, revealing “true self” on the Internet, and passion for the Internet.’ Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 12 (4), pp. 401–6. Turkle, S. (1997) Life on the Screen. New York: Simon & Schuster. Turkle, S. (2005) ‘Identity crisis.’ CyberReader, Ed. Victor J., Vitanza. New York: Pearson Education. pp. 57–76. Van Dijek, J. (2008) ‘Digital photography: communication, identity, memory.’ Visual Communication, 7, pp. 57–76. Vanmeenen, K. (2009) ‘Mind over matter: modern media literacy.’ Afterimage, 37 (2), p. 2. Vi, S. (2009) ‘Cursive writing: are its last days approaching?’ Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36 (4), pp. 357–9. Wankel, C. & Kingsley, J. (2010) Higher Education in Virtual Worlds: Teaching and Learning in Second Life. New York: Emerald Group. Weber, B. (2009) Makeover TV: Selfhood, Citizenship and Celebrity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

251

Copyright of Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.