Advertisement

Synthetic Worlds and Virtual Citizens: Experimental Ethnographic Simulation, Virtual Autotopography and Emerging Citizenship Identity in Young People

Chapter

Abstract

Young people from communities with distinct religious or cultural identities have often found it difficult to engage with or be welcomed into citizenship in European democracies where there is no strong sense of inclusive national identity or of citizenship. There is a need to develop a more inclusive conception of national and European citizenship. This chapter presents initial findings from a project in secondary schools in the northeast of England, UK, using a virtual environment to understand how such technology can explore and develop young people’s conceptualisation of a citizenship in harmony with cultural and religious convictions in contemporary British society. European studies of citizenship identity development in traditional educational settings have found them becoming less successful. Initial findings from the present study suggest that a revealing alternative approach is afforded through the use of immersive virtual worlds by applying experiential learning and ethnographic simulation.

Keywords

Young People National Identity Citizenship Education Good Citizen Civic Education 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alexander, R. (2008). Pedagogy, curriculum and culture. In K. Hall, P. Murphy & J. Soler (eds.), Pedagogy and Practice (pp. 3–27). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Amadeo, J., Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Husfeldt, V., & Nikolova, R. (2002). Civic knowledge and engagement: An IEA study of upper secondary students in sixteen countries. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.Google Scholar
  3. Bers, M.U. (2001). Identity construction environments: developing personal and moral values through the design of a virtual city. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(9), 4, 365–415.Google Scholar
  4. Bers, U. & Urrea, C. (2000). Technological prayers: Parents and children working with robotics and values. In A. Druin & J. Hendler (eds.), Robots for kids: Exploring new technologies for learning experiences (pp. 194–217). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  5. Bisaillon, D. (1989). Logo computer culture and children’s development: The influence of socio-moral atmosphere. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  6. Bradford Metropolitan District Council (2001). Community Pride not prejudice. Bradford: Bradford Council.Google Scholar
  7. Braidotti, R. (1994). Embodiment, Sexual Difference, and the Nomadic Subject. Hypatia, 8(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruckman, A. (1998). Community support for constructionist learning. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 7(1–2), 47–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chief Inspector of Schools (2008). Annual Report, 2008, 29. London: Ofsted.Google Scholar
  10. Commission on integration and cohesion (2007). Our shared future. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  11. Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Rochberg-Halton, E. (1981). The meaning of things. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Daily Mail (2007). January 29th.Google Scholar
  13. Deakin C.R., Coates, M., Taylor, M. & Ritchie, S. (2004). A systematic review of the impact of citizenship education on the provision of schooling. Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education. Retrieved 1 March 2011 from http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=127&language=en-US.
  14. Deakin C.R., Taylor, M., Tew, M., Samuel, E., Durant, K., & Ritchie, S. (2005). A systematic review of the impact of citizenship education on student learning and achievement. Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education. Retrieved 01 March 2011 from http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=129.
  15. Erikson, E.H. (1950). Childhood and Society. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  16. Erikson, E.H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  17. Gallup (2009). The Gallup Coexist Index 2009: A Global Study of Interfaith Relations. London: Gallup.Google Scholar
  18. Gilligan (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Goldsmith, L. (2008). Citizenship: Our Common Bond. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  20. Gonzalez, J. (1995). Autotopographies. In J. Brahm & M. Driscoll (eds.), Prosthetic territories: Politics and Hypertechnologies (pp. 133–150). San Francisco: Westview Press Inc.Google Scholar
  21. Hattie, J.A.C. (2009). Visible Learning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Home Office (2001a). Building cohesive communities: a report of the Ministerial Group on Public Order and Community Cohesion. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  23. Home Office (2001b). Community Cohesion: A Report of the Independent Review Team. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  24. Home Office (2004). Strength in diversity. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  25. Home Office (2006). Strong and prosperous communities (white paper). London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  26. Independent (2006). Citizenship: Is this the worst taught subject?. Retrieved 1 March 2011 from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/citizenship-is-this-the-worst-taught-subject-406760.html.
  27. Kerr. D., Sturman, L., Schultz, W., & Burge, B. (2010). ICCS 2009 European Report: Civic Knowledge, attitudes, and engagement among lower-secondary school students in 24 European countries. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Retrieved 1 March 2011 from http://www.iea.nl/iea_publications.html.
  28. Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. In T. Lickona (ed.), Moral development and behavior (pp. 31–53). New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.Google Scholar
  29. Kohlberg, L. (1985). The just community approach to moral education in theory and practice. In M. Berkowitz & F. Oser (eds.), Moral education: Theory and application (pp.27–87). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  30. Kollock, P. & Smith, M. (1996). Managing the virtual commons: Cooperation and conflict in computer communities. In S. Herring (ed.), Computer-mediated communication (pp. 109–128). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  31. MacFarlane, B. (2005). The Disengaged Academic: the Retreat from Citizenship, Higher Education Quarterly, 59(4), 296–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martin, S. (2010). Teachers using learning styles: caught between research and accountability? Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8) 1583–1591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martin, S. & Feng, A. (2006). The construction of citizenship and nation building: the Singapore Case, Education for Intercultural Citizenship: Concepts and Comparisons (pp. 47–66). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  34. Martin, S., & Vallance, M. (2008). The impact of synchronous inter-networked teacher training in information and communication technology integration. Computers & Education, 51(1), 34–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McGhee, D. (2005). Patriots of the future? A critical examination of community cohesion strategies in contemporary Britain. Sociological Research Online, 10(3).Google Scholar
  36. MORI (2007). What works in community cohesion. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  37. Ofsted (2006). Towards consensus? Citizenship in secondary school. The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  38. Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2003). Learning for Cosmopolitan Citizenship: Theoretical debates and young people’s experiences, Educational Review, 55(4), 243–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Papert, S. (1987). The value of logic and the logic of values. In B. Inhelder, D. de Caprona & A. Cornu-Wells (eds.), Piaget today (pp. 101–110). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  40. Schultz, W., Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Losito, B. & Kerr, D. (2008). International Civic and Citizenship Education Study: Assessment Framework. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Retrieved 1 March 2011 from http://www.iea.nl.
  41. Schultz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Kerr, D. & Losito, B. (2010a). Initial Findings from the IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.Google Scholar
  42. Schultz. W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Kerr, D. & Losito, B. (2010b). ICCS 2009 International Report: Civic Knowledge, attitudes, and engagement among lower-secondary school students in 38 countries. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Retrieved 1 March 2011 from http://www.iea.nl/iea_publications.html.
  43. Stationery Office (2011a). Retrieved 1 March 2011 from http://www.lifeintheuktest.gov.uk/htmlsite/index.html.
  44. Stationery Office (2011b). Retrieved 1 March 2011 from http://www.tsoshop.co.uk/bookstore.asp?FO=1240167&trackid=002353.
  45. The Equalities Review (2007). Fairness and Freedom: The Final Report of the Equalities Review. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  46. Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H., & Schultz, W. (2001). Citizenship and Education in Twenty-eight Countries: Civic Knowledge and Engagement at Age Fourteen. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.Google Scholar
  47. Torney-Purta, J., Schwille, J., & Amadeo, J.A. (eds.) (1999). Civic Education Across Countries: Twenty-Four National Case Studies for the IEA Civic Education Project. Delft: IEA.Google Scholar
  48. Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  49. Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1992). Epistemological Pluralism and the Revaluation of the Concrete. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 11(1), 3–33.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social Sciences and LawTeesside UniversityMiddlesbroughUK

Personalised recommendations