Week Five: Response to Articles

While reading the agent articles for this week, I couldn't help but wonder how long, as a teacher, I will be in demand? For those of us who have read “Feed”, the hologram teacher seemed to be a crazy, techno-future idea. After reading these articles, the idea of a teacher hologram is becoming more reality than fantasy! This leads me to wonder: What can I do that these agents can't? Many of us have discussed the 'humanity' of these avatars. If criticizing them is 'abuse' (as the study contends), then what level of humanity have we assigned to these creations? And if they're human, then are these avatars equals in the classroom? Ultimately, the important question for me, as a teacher, is this-

Is a student's agent equally as human as the student themselves?

This question becomes increasingly important when we consider the concept of responsibility. In software programs like “Second Life”, students are able to create an agent, formulate a social network, and produce action in this virtual world. When a student is controlling an agent, is the student still responsible for the actions of this avatar? Or are these actions merely the responses of a technologically enhanced entity, separate of the student and void of any responsibility?

This responsibility question can be extended to many forms of writing. In general, students find digital writing to be more accessible for many reasons, including but not limited to the ease of which humans can communicate without direct, immediate repercussions. Think about our chat room for this course. If we were meeting in person, many factors would influence our responses and interactions; non-verbals, environment, and spacial relations are some of these communication tools. In digital writing (or WebVista chats), these factors are eliminated. All that's left is the writing on the screen. Now extend this a step further. A “Second Life” chat among avatars that we have created (but not mirrored after ourselves) would certainly have even less communication factors. We could longer worry about words- it's the avatars saying them, not us! In this sense, we've eliminated all factors of non-verbals, environment, spacial relations, and now common filters on language and expression; what we are left with is a non-filtered avatar, susceptible to 'abuse' but willing to dish it out at the same time.

I appreciate the use of agents in the classroom, and can see many creative uses for these software programs. However, I become concerned about the level of humanity we place on these avatars, while simultaneously eliminating the levels of responsibility attached to their creators. If avatars are an extension of the student (whether in mind, attitude, or mere creation), then shouldn't the responsibilities placed on the student be extended to the avatar?