Gwyneth Hughes
University of East London, UK

Catherine Scott
UK Healthcare Education Partnership

No pain no game: playing a VLE-based identity game to develop online communication and reflective skills

Computer mediated communication (cmc) is becoming part of the mainstream of learning in HE and the associated online skills are well recognised (Hughes, 2004). Salmon's (2000, 2002) five step model for training in the use of cmc dominates the sector, but has limitations. This paper addresses an alternative to this linear and structured approach which we developed during a cmc collaboration between Imperial College London and UEL. It raises some questions about online identity and how this is maintained which is missing from Salmon but explored elsewhere (Turkle, Kirkup, Bayne). A blended-learning programme, SLTP (the Supporting Learning and Teaching Programme) at Imperial College London used an online game to engage learners in cmc and in doing so to explore some of the potential problems of language use, social interaction online, identity and trust.

Participants in the game were given anonymous log-in IDs to an otherwise empty VLE and divided into mixed groups of four. They were instructed to maintain a partly fictitious online identity over the course of a week, answering questions judiciously while exploring the identity of others in their group. Students from both institutions took part in the game so players did not know each other. The rules required that players chose one of three aspects of identity: either gender, nationality/ethnicity or age, which they had to alter, whilst maintaining their true identity in other respects. After a week players were invited to guess the 'true' identity of others in the group and to reveal themselves. The authors both took part in the game on the same footing as the students.

Constructing identities through discourse is a complex and challenging process (Turkle, 1995) and being online is no exception. Reflective comments and in some cases longer reflective statements elicited from players suggested that the game was both challenging and fun but in some cases unsettling. Issues were raised about risk taking, ethics, the value of a game as a learning tool and the balance between identity creator and identity challenger. We were concerned by a gender imbalance in those who engaged in the game: those who did not participate fully were mostly male. It was also difficult to sychronise the needs and schedules of the 2 institutions.

Despite some of its problems, the use of a provocative game for cmc induction has the potential to challenge the dominance of Salmon's 5 easy step 'caring and sharing' model for facilitating online communication. Raising issues of risk taking and online identity in this way clearly works for some but might discourage others and the game is being redesigned to promote wider participation and more adventurous identity alterations. It could perhaps work well in combination with some of the activities Salmon suggests.

References

Bayne, S. (2002) 'Mutability, metamorphosis and education in cyberspace', presented at ICE 2002

Hughes, G. (2004 forthcoming) 'Learning to Learning Online: how to ensure that more learners benefit from new online pedagogies' in Hartley, P., Woods, A. & Pill, M. (Eds) Enhancing Teaching in Higher Education: New Approaches for improving student learning London: Routledge

Kirkup, G. (2001) 'Teacher or avatar? Identity issues in computer-mediated contexts' in Burge, E. & Haughey, M. (Eds) Using Learning Technologies: International Perspectives on Practice London: Falmer

Salmon, G. (2000) E-moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online London: Kogan Page

Salmon, G. (2002) E-tivities: The Key to Active Learning Online. London: Kogan Page.

Turkle, S. (1995) Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet New York: Simon & Schuster