delinquent rebellion against a social order that young people feel powerless to .... criticised included questions requiring knowledge of why the Huguenots left ...
Experiential Learning in Virtual Worlds: Opening an Undiscovered Country
Edited by
Paul Jerry & Linda Lindsey
Inter-Disciplinary Press Oxford,(United(Kingdom(
! !!Citizenship,!Identity!and!Experiential!Learning!in!the!Virtual!World!
Citizenship, Identity and Experiential Learning in the Virtual World Stewart Martin
Abstract Virtual worlds can be effective in developing self-perception and technology is able to modify established and deep-rooted views.1,2 This research uses an immersive virtual world to promote self-awareness and empathy. During adolescence young people are developing their sense of ‘self’ and adult relationships towards others, framed through the context of family, friends and cultural and religious inheritance. They are also developing attitudes towards political institutions and society; their citizenship identity. The dynamics between ‘self’, upbringing, cultural background, religious belief and social context can create acceptance, achievement and social engagement, or social rejection and disaffection. Particular anxieties surround the disengagement and marginalisation of groups such as Muslims, heightened by globalisation, terrorism and highprofile extremist events, often compounded by the media, as with young Muslims’ reported views on the desirability of Sharia Law.3,4 Low voter turnout and increasing disaffection with politics have exacerbated concerns but citizenship education, introduced in the UK largely to address these, has been of limited success. This chapter describes a virtual world study of citizenship identity development using contemporary scenarios to discover what motivates young people to engage with political issues, how they receive the concerns/values of others and how technology can promote social inclusion and cohesion. Key Words: Virtual environments, identity, citizenship, education, experiential learning.
***** 1.
Introduction Schools find it difficult to provide adolescents with suitable contexts and role models as they develop their citizenship identity.5,6 Many countries have adopted a largely unsuccessful approach to citizenship education that emphases content, information recall and didactic instructional teaching. 7,8,9 The research reported here uses an immersive virtual world to facilitate an alternative and superior pedagogy that prioritises empowerment and ‘performativity’ to explore the society young people wish to bring about.10,11,12 This approach de-emphasises the study of academic content, the institutions of government, ‘the rule of law’ and citizenship as coercion
! ! 70!!!!!!!!!Citizenship,!Identity!and!Experiential!Learning!in!the!Virtual!World! ! ! _____________________________________________________________________________________________! or compliance.13 It is preferable to promote a more active citizenry and reduce apathy and disengagement because ‘at the worst, disengagement can lead to acts of delinquent rebellion against a social order that young people feel powerless to influence.’14 Many governments have become especially concerned about the fragmentation of and threat to their traditional political and national identity, the growth of religious fundamentalism, the increasing radicalisation of some groups and political disengagement from the state.15,16,17,18,19,20 Youth alienation from democratic processes has caused particular concern and the growth of citizenship education ‘has stemmed, in part, from angst about the low levels of voter participation by young citizens in the 18-24 age bracket, in particular.’21 Particular anxieties surround the disengagement and marginalisation of groups such as Muslims emphasised by international terrorism and extremist events.22,23,24 In Western and European countries the configuration of citizenship identity is contested to varying degrees.25 In these increasingly pluralistic democracies there is need of a consultative, participatory approach, especially in schools, that seeks to reveal how citizenship identities may be evolving over time in line with the growth of globalisation and changes in demographics, migration and political consensus. 2.
Environment This research employs a small purpose built environment developed from the open source code from Second Life (OpenSim) supplemented by additional functionality, including an iterative communal values dictionary, personal diaries, emotional expression and legacy recording. Using this approach, concerns about the commercial platform’s poor activity monitoring, weak data protection and privacy controls, ‘griefing’ (cyber-bullying) and mature content can be removed, as can problems associated with large platforms.26 Immersive virtual environments facilitate the study of values and constructionist methodologies are effective for maximising learning and individual creative expression (see Bruckman) to show that constructionist approaches maximise the learning, content production and creative expression of individuals in learning communities.27,28,29 The research employs ‘virtual autotopography’ to articulate identity through the selection of symbolically significant objects.31,32 Participant avatars and their dwellings re-present the self (differentiation) and the manner of their interaction with the virtual constructed space, its objects and introduced ‘scenarios’ maps integration into the virtual society and culture (identification). The values, stories and reflections attached to these artefacts provide data about the tensions between differentiation and identification and how these inform emerging perspectives on citizenship. Tensions are surfaced between needs for social integration (identification) and desires for individuality (differentiation).32,33 The experimental imperative for participants is to discover how successfully they can create a harmonious microcosm where individuality and varied cultural and religious heritages and allegiances are sustainable and are able to produce a shared,
!
Stewart!!Martin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 71! ! ! ___________________________________________________________________________________________!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
common citizenship identity.34 This draws on Kohlberg’s proposition that moral development is shaped by participation in democratic social institutions that encourage self-government and group decision-making.35 3.
Methodology Participants are immersed in the virtual environment for about two hours per week for six weeks and through experimental ethnographic simulation use their avatar to participate as ‘citizens’ seeking to form a harmonious community. Each avatar owns a private dwelling space and from a communal database of artefacts including furniture, household objects and clothing creates a ‘home’ illustrating what matters to them, and what they value as a citizen. Each artefact used by an avatar requires narrative attributes that provide its description, associated story/biography, and an explanation of the values and purpose ascribed to it - avatars are also provided with biographies by their owners. Interactions between participants are conducted via their avatars through synchronous and asynchronous in-world chat and text to respond to a series of introduced scenarios presenting topical citizenship-related issues and events drawn from the mass media. Participants debate scenarios and their social implications and attempt to reach a consensus about their social implications. This approach is designed to minimise the possibility of assumptions being inferred by participants from the nature of the experimental environment about whether moral development proceeds universally from concrete to abstract thinking, is differentiated by gender or is conditional upon differences in individual thinking.36,37,38,39 Avatars also attach values with associated definitions and emoticons to their responses in discussions. Sessions are monitored discreetly by research staff to ensure the rules of democratic debate are followed. Abstract and universal expressions of values separate from those attached to particular experiences or instances are created by participants through recording them and their explanations and definitions in a communal values dictionary developed by the community. Participants comment on conflicts between the definitions provided to explore values and behaviours in concrete ways grounded in experiences and through more abstract means; and explore and discuss the dictionary to highlight differing definitions of values, or to enter new values and definitions. Artefacts and defined values thereby become ‘collective repositories of meaning’.40 A semi-structured reflective diary allows participants to record their reflections after each session and at the end of the experiment complete a ‘legacy document’ for subsequent visitors; this asks them to summarise what they have learned about citizenship and themselves by using this technology and to compare this with their usual experiences of citizenship education. Each participant also produces a report on the dwellings and appearance of several other participants. An exit interview gathers opinions and user experiences of the project and reflections on reports about their created avatar and its home. Analysis of this data will inform the
!
! ! 72!!!!!!!!!Citizenship,!Identity!and!Experiential!Learning!in!the!Virtual!World! ! ! _____________________________________________________________________________________________! project’s future work, aids understanding of how individuals construct citizenship identity and of how personal, religious and cultural values inform this. Implications for citizenship and citizenship education will be explored. The environment logs and date/time stamps all user activity, ‘chat’, and action to enable classification and ordering of activity and events. 4.
Discussion Schools and colleges in the North-east of England are participating to explore and articulate new ways for learning about adolescents’ emerging adult identities and to develop more effective pedagogies and technologies for teaching citizenship. Collaborative engagements of this kind are essential to bridge the traditional gulf between educational research, policy and practice. This is acute in the UK where there is a strong utilitarian approach to educational pedagogy although the disconnect between research, policy and classroom practice is an international phenomenon of concern.41,42 The current project bridges this gulf and aims to explore potential advantages of evidence led practice informed by research, over practice based on ‘what works’ or political dogma. The project is producing greater understanding of how individuals construct their internal sense of identity in the context of wider social structures and cultural influences, and how novel uses of emerging technologies can be applied to the experimental study of this. Preliminary findings draw from 705 students aged between 12 and 19 (male = 24%, female = 76%; white = 60%, Pakistani = 18%, other Asian or African = 22%) in over 40 groups in schools and colleges in the North East of England. Most felt their ethnic origin had little impact on their everyday life (54%), whilst 34% said it had an impact sometimes and 11% said it had an impact all the time. Participants gave their religion as: none (38%); Christian (26%); Muslim (24%); Sikh (6%); Jewish (1%); other (4%). Most said their religious orientation had no influence on their daily life (56%), whilst 29% said it had some impact, and 15% said it often or always had an impact on this (figures rounded). Participants found criteria for national identity difficult and unreliable when they realised that classmates who they thought of as sharing their national identity were excluded when items such as ‘place of birth’ were applied – i.e. classmates born outside the UK because their parents were vacationing or working abroad, or overseas with the armed forces or diplomatic service. Despite this, most participants characterised ‘being British’ as largely defined by residence or birthplace (24%). For some national identity required a preference for a particular diet (14%) or particular beliefs or allegiances - support for law enforcement agencies or the military (13%). Many associated national identity with patriotism, free speech, equality and acceptance of other cultures. Some prioritised a relatively neutral accent and high verbal fluency in the dominant national language (11%) or possession of legal documentation such as a UK passport (9%). These five criteria covered 71% of
!
Stewart!!Martin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 73! ! ! ___________________________________________________________________________________________!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
responses. Much less emphasis was given to appearance (white/non-white), lifestyle, religion, wealth or education. Criteria for ‘a good citizen’ attracted greater consensus across fewer domains. Over 83% of participants concluded that a g ood citizen was defined most by behaviour and character, key elements being (in priority order) being helpful, friendly, kind, polite, caring, honest, respectful, law abiding, and trustworthy; a good citizen was essentially someone who was morally good, fair and compassionate and tolerant and unprejudiced in their approach to others. Next were closely related behaviours such as involvement in voluntary activity that helped the community or individuals groups such as the elderly, caring for the environment (not ‘green’ but averse to graffiti, litter, etc.) and generally not indulging in anti- social behaviour i.e. being non-confrontational; not behaving badly, not taking drugs or committing crime (11%). Of much less importance were an individual’s job, appearance, education, religious beliefs or abilities and such factors accounted for less than 6% of responses. Participants also examined the ‘Life in the UK’ examination that all aspirant citizens and permanent residents are required to pass and its published preparation booklet.43,44 These tests include questions on topics from knowledge of civic institutions and responsibilities to questions about historical issues or statistical information about contemporary society. These questions and their underlying criteria were rejected by participants, who saw many as unworkable, irrelevant or elitist and likely to be failed by most existing UK citizens; examples particularly criticised included questions requiring knowledge of why the Huguenots left France for Britain in the 16th and 18th centuries and whether more boys than girls smoke in the UK. 5.
Conclusions These debates have particular resonance in the current international climate, where citizenship rights, responsibilities and identities are the back-text for many economic and social tensions in some countries. The connection between education and the kind of citizens it produces is particularly important in western democratic societies and, in the UK and western Europe especially, has been at the heart of debates about immigration, political cynicism, spending cuts, budget down-sizing and associated political protest. The subversion of moral and ethical arguments in favor of a ‘good society’ by political decisions that presented as economic imperatives (the ‘affordable society’?) is of especial concern within states espousing or seeking to develop liberal democracy and citizen empowerment. Arguments for a ‘big society’ rang hollow with many participants given a present where there is concern that future generations may be educationally and economically poorer than at present.45 A greater understanding of how culture, values and heritage inform group and individual identity may help illuminate the impact of these on national identity and
!
! ! 74!!!!!!!!!Citizenship,!Identity!and!Experiential!Learning!in!the!Virtual!World! ! ! _____________________________________________________________________________________________!
the possibilities for an inclusive sense of ‘Britishness’. For politicians, community and faith representatives and educationalists these issues are of more than passing interest in post-industrial pluralist democracies where there is anxiety about how individuals understand and relate to community, politics and values and how these influence identity and citizenship. The relationship between personal responsibility and engagement with political issues in a participatory democracy is a source of continuing tension not just within the UK but more widely where some countries have adopted highly directive approaches to citizenship education.46 The current phase of the project is developing a model of citizenship identity formation and the processes at work as young people reflect upon their entry into the adult world and they approach their first experience of democratic participation through voting. This model will map the contribution to citizenship identity that is made by cultural, religious and other values and will contribute to an understanding of how these articulate within the family, the local community and civil society more generally. This model and its associated instrumentation will provide the foundation for wider studies to follow and aid the construction of a Citizenship Assessment Scale to inform an understanding of national identity in young people and its implications for a pluralistic capitalist democracy. Notes 1
M.U. Bers, ‘Identity Construction Environments: Developing Personal and Moral Values through the Design of a Virtual City’, Journal of the Learning Sciences, Vol. 10, No. 9, 2001, pp. 365-415. 2 ! S. Martin & M. Vallance, ‘The Impact of Synchronous Inter-Networked Teacher Training in Information and Communication Technology Integration’, Computers and Education, Vol. 51, No. 1, 2008, pp. 34-53. 3 A. Osler & H. Starkey, ‘Learning for Cosmopolitan Citizenship: Theoretical Debates and Young People’s Experiences’, Educational Review, Vol. 55, No. 4, 2003, pp. 243254.! 4 For example, see the Daily Mail, January 29th, 2007. 5 E.H. Erikson, Childhood and Society, Norton, New York, 1950.! 6 S. McCormack, The Independent, London, 6 July 2006, retrieved 8 April 2011, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/citizenship-is-this- theworst-taught-subject-406760.html.! 7 S. Martin & A. Feng, ‘The Construction of Citizenship and Nation Building: The Singapore Case’, Education for Intercultural Citizenship: Concepts and Comparisons, G. Alred, M. Byram & M. Fleming (eds), Multilingual Matters, London, 2006, p. 47.! 8 L. Goldsmith, Citizenship: Our Common Bond, HMSO, London, 2008.! 9 Chief Inspector of Schools, Annual Report, Ofsted, London, 2008, p. 29.
!
Stewart!!Martin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 75! ! ! ___________________________________________________________________________________________!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10
R. Braidotti, ‘Embodiment, Sexual Difference, and the Nomadic Subject’, Hypatia, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1994, pp. 1-13.! 11 MORI, What Works in Community Cohesion, HMSO, London, 2007.! 12 The Equalities Review, Fairness and Freedom: The Final Report of the Equalities Review, HMSO, London, 2007. 13 Ofsted, Towards Consensus? Citizenship in Secondary School, HMSO, London, 2006.! 14 Ibid., p. 5.! 15 C.R. Deakin et al., ‘A Systematic Review of the Impact of Citizenship Education on Student Learning and Achievement’, Research Evidence in Education Library, EPPICentre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, London, 2005. 16 Home Office, Building Cohesive Communities, HMSO, London, 2001. 17 Home Office, Community Cohesion, HMSO, London, 2001.! 18 Home Office, Strength in Diversity, HMSO, London, 2004.! 19 Home Office, Strong and Prosperous Communities, HMSO, London, 2006.! 20 Bradford Metropolitan District Council, Community Pride not Prejudice, Bradford Council, Bradford, 2001.! 21 B. MacFarlane, ‘The Disengaged Academic: The Retreat from Citizenship’, Higher Education Quarterly, Vol. 59, No. 4, 2005, p. 298. 22 Osler & Starkey, loc. cit.! 23 D. McGhee, ‘Patriots of the Future? A Critical Examination of Community Cohesion Strategies in Contemporary Britain’, Sociological Research Online, 30 September 2005, Retrieved 8 April 2011, http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/3/ mcghee.html.! 24 MORI, What Works in Community Cohesion, HMSO, London, 2007.! 25 A. Manning & S. Roy, ‘Culture Clash or Culture Club? National Identity in Britain’, The Economic Journal, Vol. 120, No. 542, 2010.! 26 P. Kollock & M. Smith, ‘Managing the Virtual Commons: Cooperation and Conflict in Computer Communities’, Computer-Mediated Communication, Benjamins, Amsterdam, 1996, p. 109.! 27 M. Csikszentmihalyi & E. Rochberg-Halton, The Meaning of Things, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1981.! 28 D. Bisaillon, ‘Logo Computer Culture and Children’s Development: The Influence of Socio-moral Atmosphere’, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1989.! 29 M.U. Bers & C. Urrea, ‘Technological Prayers: Parents and Children Working with Robotics and Values’, Robots for Kids: Exploring New Technologies for Learning Experiences, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 2000, p. 194.! 30 J. Gonzalez, ‘Autotopographies’, J. Brahm & M. Driscoll (eds), Prosthetic Territories: Politics and Hypertechnologies, Westview Press Inc, San Francisco, 1995.
!
! ! 76!!!!!!!!!Citizenship,!Identity!and!Experiential!Learning!in!the!Virtual!World! ! ! _____________________________________________________________________________________________! 31
Bers, 2001, op. cit.! Erikson, loc. cit.! 33 S. Turkle, Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1995.! 34 Deakin et al, 2004, loc. cit.! 35 L. Kohlberg, ‘The Just Community Approach to Moral Education in Theory and Practice’, Moral Education: Theory and Application, M. Berkowitz & F. Oser (eds), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale NJ, 1985.! 36 Ibid.! 37 G.E. Gilligan, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 1982.! 38 S. Papert, ‘The Value of Logic and the Logic of Values’, Piaget Today, B. Inhelder, D. de Caprona & A. Cornu-Wells (eds), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah NJ, 1987.! 39 S. Turkle & S. Papert, ‘Epistemological Pluralism and the Revaluation of the Concrete’, Mathematical Behaviour, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1992, pp. 3-33.! 40 Bers, 2001, op. cit., p. 383. 41 ! R. Alexander, ‘Pedagogy, Curriculum and Culture’, Pedagogy and Practice, K. Hall, P. Murphy & J. Soler (eds), Sage, London, 2008. 42 ! J.A.C. Hattie, Visible Learning, Routledge, London, 2009.! 43 Home Office, UK Border Agency, Retrieved 8 April 2011, http://www.lifeinthe uktest.gov.uk/htmlsite/index.html.! 44 Home Office, 2001, op. cit. 45 ! J. Knight, BBC News, London, 4 A ugust 2005, Retrieved 8 A pril 2011, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4694103.stm! 46 Martin & Feng, op. cit. Bibliography 32
Alexander, R., ‘Pedagogy, Curriculum and Culture’. Pedagogy and Practice. Hall, K., Murphy, P. & Soler, J. (eds), Sage, London, 2008. Amadeo, J., Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Husfeldt, V. & Nikolova, R., Civic Knowledge and Engagement: An IEA Study of Upper Secondary Students in Sixteen Countries. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Amsterdam, 2002. Bers, M.U., ‘Identity Construction Environments: Developing Personal and Moral Values through the Design of a Virtual City’. Journal of the Learning Sciences. Vol. 10, No. 9, 2001, pp. 365-415.
!
Stewart!!Martin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 77! ! ! ___________________________________________________________________________________________!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bers, U. & Urrea, C., ‘Technological Prayers: Parents and Children Working with Robotics and Values’. Robots for Kids: Exploring New Technologies for Learning Experiences. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 2000, pp. 194-217. Bisaillon, D., Logo Computer Culture and Children’s Development: The Influence of Socio-Moral Atmosphere. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge MA, 1989. Bradford Metropolitan District Council, Community Pride not Prejudice. Bradford Council, Bradford, 2001. Braidotti, R., ‘Embodiment, Sexual Difference, and the Nomadic Subject’. Hypatia. Vol. 8, No. 1, 1994, pp. 1-13. Bruckman, A., ‘Community Support for Constructionist Learning’. Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Vol. 7, Nos. 1-2, 1998, pp. 47-86. Chief Inspector of Schools, Annual Report. Ofsted, London, 2008.! Commission on Integration and Cohesion, Our Shared Future. HMSO, London, 2007. Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Rochberg-Halton, E., The Meaning of Things. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1981. Deakin C.R., Coates, M., Taylor, M. & Ritchie, S., ‘A Systematic Review of the Impact of Citizenship Education on the Provision of Schooling’. Research Evidence in Education Library. EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, London, 2004. Deakin C.R., Taylor, M., Tew, M., S amuel, E., D urant, K. & Ritchie, S., ‘A Systematic Review of the Impact of Citizenship Education on Student Learning and Achievement’. Research Evidence in Education Library, EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, London, 2005. Erikson, E.H., Childhood and Society. Norton, New York, 1950. Erikson, E.H., Identity: Youth and Crisis. Norton, New York, 1968. Gallup, The Gallup Coexist Index 2009: A Global Study of Interfaith Relations. Gallup, London, 2009.
!
! ! 78!!!!!!!!!Citizenship,!Identity!and!Experiential!Learning!in!the!Virtual!World! ! ! _____________________________________________________________________________________________! Gilligan, G.E., In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 1982. Goldsmith, L., Citizenship: Our Common Bond. HMSO, London, 2008.! Gonzalez, J., ‘Autotopographies’. Prosthetic Territories: Hypertechnologies. Westview Press, San Francisco, 1995.!
Politics
and
Hattie, J.A.C., Visible Learning. Routledge, London, 2009.! Home Office, Building Cohesive Communities. HMSO, London, 2001. Home Office, Community Cohesion. HMSO, London, 2001.! Home Office, Strength in Diversity. HMSO, London, 2004. !Home Office, Strong and Prosperous Communities. HMSO, London, 2006. Kerr. D., Sturman, L., Schultz, W. & Burge, B., Civic Knowledge, Attitudes, and Engagement among Lower-Secondary School Students in 24 European Countries. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Amsterdam, 2010. Kohlberg, L., ‘Moral Stages and Moralization: The Cognitive-Developmental Approach’. Moral Development and Behavior. Lickona, T. (ed), Holt Reinhart & Winston, New York, 1976. Kohlberg, L., ‘The Just Community Approach to Moral Education in Theory and Practice’. Moral Education: Theory and Application. Berkowitz, M. & Oser, F. (eds), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale NJ, 1985. Kollock, P. & Smith, M., ‘ Managing the Virtual Commons: Cooperation and Conflict in Computer Communities’. Computer-Mediated Communication. Herring, S. (ed), Benjamins, Amsterdam, 1996. MacFarlane, B., ‘The Disengaged Academic: The Retreat from Citizenship’. Higher Education Quarterly. Vol. 59, No. 4, 2005, pp. 296-312. Manning, A. & Roy, S., ‘Culture Clash or Culture Club? National Identity in Britain’. The Economic Journal. Vol. 120, No. 542, 2010.
!
Stewart!!Martin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 79! ! ! ___________________________________________________________________________________________!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Martin, S., ‘Teachers Using Learning Styles: Caught between Research and Accountability?’. Teaching and Teacher Education. Vol. 26, No. 8, 2010, pp. 15831591. Martin, S. & Feng, A., ‘The Construction of Citizenship and Nation Building: The Singapore Case’. Education for Intercultural Citizenship: Concepts and Comparisons. Multilingual Matters, London, 2006. Martin, S. & Vallance, M., ‘The Impact of Synchronous Inter-Networked Teacher Training in Information and Communication Technology Integration’. Computers and Education. Vol. 51, No. 1, 2008, pp. 34-53. McGhee, D., ‘Patriots of the Future? A Critical Examination of Community Cohesion Strategies in Contemporary Britain’. Sociological Research Online. 30 September 2005, Retrieved 8 April 2011, http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/3/ mcghee.html. MORI, What Works in Community Cohesion. HMSO, London, 2007.! Ofsted, Towards Consensus? Citizenship in Secondary School. HMSO, London, 2006. Osler, A. & Starkey, H., ‘Learning for Cosmopolitan Citizenship: Theoretical Debates and Young People’s Experiences’. Educational Review. Vol. 55, No. 4, 2003, pp. 243254. Papert, S., ‘The Value of Logic and the Logic of Values’. Piaget Today. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah NJ, 1987. Schultz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Kerr, D. & Losito, B., Initial Findings from the IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Amsterdam, 2010. Schultz, W., Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Losito, B. & Kerr, D., International Civic and Citizenship Education Study: Assessment Framework. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Amsterdam, 2008. Schultz. W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Kerr, D. & Losito, B., Civic Knowledge, Attitudes, and Engagement among Lower-secondary School Students in 38 Countries. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Amsterdam, 2010.
!
! ! 80!!!!!!!!!Citizenship,!Identity!and!Experiential!Learning!in!the!Virtual!World! ! ! _____________________________________________________________________________________________! The Equalities Review, Fairness and Freedom: The Final Report of the Equalities Review. HMSO, London, 2007. Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H. & Schultz, W., Citizenship and Education in Twenty-eight Countries: Civic Knowledge and Engagement at Age Fourteen. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Amsterdam, 2001. Torney-Purta, J., Schwille, J., & Amadeo, J.A. (eds), Civic Education Across Countries: Twenty-Four National Case Studies for the IEA Civic Education Project. IEA, Delft, 1999. Turkle, S., Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. Simon & Schuster, Newe York, 1995. Turkle, S. & Papert, S., ‘Epistemological Pluralism and the Revaluation of the Concrete’. Mathematical Behavior. Vol. 11, No. 1, 1992, pp. 3-33.
Stewart Martin is Principal Lecturer in the School of Social Sciences and Law at Teesside University, UK. His research interests include digital technology in education; citizenship; identity; pedagogy; educational leadership, change and achievement. Currently he leads the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council funded project What Citizenship do we want? Stewart is founder member and Chair of the International Virtual Environments Research Group (iVERG) see http://www.iverg.com
!
