Koh+Herlong

=__**MODULE 1**__=


 * Research Interest**

My area of interest is cyber ethics. This is a very large area, which includes lying, cheating, bullying, committing crimes, and more. Over the course of all my classes, I have narrowed the field to a specific, researchable area. I want to understand why students think it is okay to "lie" online, particularly in creating deceptive identities. I believe learning about their reasons will help us better create cyber ethic curriculum in the schools. I think we give our students mixed signals - sometimes it is okay to pretend to be someone else (Avatar) and other times, it is not okay. That mixed signal concept is only my personal feeling. Learning about what students actually think, may be helpful to design curriculum. My initial thought is that this would be a qualitative study that would interview students to understand their perspectives. My initial thought on an over arching questions is: What motivates a student to create a deceptive online identity for good and not-good situations? Other questions: Why do they do it? How do they consider ramifications? What do they believe they will gain from it?


 * Theoretical Foundation**

As I read the seven chapters, a number of theories seemed relevant to my area of interest. The two theories that resonated the most with my area of interest are:

1. Spector's (2008) mention of human-computer interaction

He discussed that there are psychological aspects to consider in human-computer interactions. Later he mentioned, within human-computer interaction, an area called activity theory. I am not 100% sure right now of the realm of activity theory; however based on Spector's (2008) description, he stated that it is about the use of artifacts and that "emphasis is placed on an object's purpose" and that activity theory "emphasizes purposeful social interactions" (p. 25). This leads me to wonder if Avatar use might be supported or explored with this theoretical foundation.

2. Schuh and Barab's (2008) discussion of situativity theory

Situativity theory is about the specific experience and context. The authors stated, "Not only does this learning take place within the practices of the community but also the social practices of the world are developed through this process" (p. 75). I wonder if this theory may help ground or create framework for online situations and opportunities to create true or false identities.


 * References**

Philosophical Perspectives. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Van Merrienboer, & M.P. Driscoll (Eds), //Handbook of research on educational communications and technology// (pp.67-84). New York, NY: Routledge.

Spector, J. M. (2008). Theoretical Foundations. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Van Merrienboer, & M.P. Driscoll (Eds), //Handbook of research on educational communications and technology// (pp. 21-28). New York, NY: Routledge.

=__ Module 2: Literature Review __=

What motivates a student to create a deceptive online identity for good and not-good situations? Other questions: Why do they do it? How do they consider ramifications? What do they believe they will gain from it? Below are five potential topics to address in the literature review.

The topic of cyberbullying has a lot of literature coverage. I am uncertain about the other four topics. I believe online ethics is still relatively new in the field. I have been to three ISTE conferences recently, and there are always very few (1 or 2) sessions on anything related to online ethics. I realize that ISTE is trying to promote the use of technology in education and that may be why the topic of ethics does not receive great coverage.

I need to find any research about online deception. Is there any research on the rate, percentage, or reasons for online deception? Is there any research on types or motivation of online deception?
 * Online deception**

This topic is different from “deception.” The term deception leans toward purposefully hiding your identity for harmful or potentially harmful reasons. There are many non-harmful reasons to change your identity online, such as creating an avatar. Both perspectives may be important building blocks of developing the landscape. Social presence should be added to this topic's search.
 * Online identity**

Cyberbully includes people who hide who they are as well as those that do not. It would add to the landscape to see what information is included in the literature about the perpetrators who anonymously hide behind the wall of cyberspace.
 * Cyberbullying**

What does the research say about viewpoints or behaviors of students online versus offline.? There may be research on why students prefer being online versus offline. If so, does it identify reasons why, and will those reasons add to my literature review content?
 * Online v. face-to-face behavior**

What type of research has been done on online morality and ethics? There are so many types of issues such as lying, cheating, stealing, as well as intentional and non-intentional acts. This information will help inform the topic, shedding light to find if morality and ethics are the same or different when online versus offline.
 * Online morality and ethics**

__** Module 3 **__


 * Problem Statement**

The larger societal problem is that online crime is growing at an exponential rate. The FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (FBI, 2009a) recorded a 33% increase in complaints from 2007 to 2008 with an overall growth of over 500% since its inception in 2001. The FBI website reports that “billions of dollars are lost every year” (FBI, 2009b). It is not just high level espionage or bad guys that commit online crimes. Disgruntled employees (Department of Justice, 2009), someone looking for a thrill, a computer geek (FBI, 2009b), are some of the examples of the average person who is committing online crimes. Offenders include both children and adults.

Relating this larger societal problem to our schools, educators may be confusing or encouraging students to create anonymous or deceptive online identities. Are we, as educators, inadvertently cultivating future criminals? On the school level, the problem is that we may not be adequately including the creation of online identities in our digital citizenship curriculum and efforts.

The literature covers much of the "how" of online identity creation but lacks in the "why" thought process. Kaufman (2011) demonstrated a method of how to interpret and analyze a student's online profile based on a four-step theoretical framework of how viewers may interpret one's identity, based on their online profile. Alvermann, Marshall, Mclean, Huddleston, Joaquin, and Bishop (2012) studied how students use web-based tools and digital literacy skills to create their online identities. This study's basis was the theoretical framework that literacy relates to social purposes and that students have a need to feel a sense of belonging. Does that theoretical framework for online identity construction hold true for deceptive identities?

Leaning toward falsified identities, the purpose of Yu and Liu's (2009) study was to learn what affect the use of anonymity or nicknames would have on students being more proactive in an online classroom to generate questions for their peers. According to the results, students tend to be more apt to express themselves if they are unknown. How does this hidden online identity affect how they will portray themselves?

Young (2009) conducted a study to find trends in general behavior and use of online social networking (OSN) sites with Australian residents between the ages of 15 and 65. The goal was to learn about the experiences on OSN, any correlations between online and offline relationships, and identity creation. Young stated that a future study might strive to understand the decisions behind why and how students create their online image, "It would be useful to ask participants to 'think-aloud' as they deconstruct their online profile" (p. 54). This recommendation points to the gap, along with Rosenberry's (2011) study. Rosenberry's (2011) results of a quantitative study showed an interesting dichotomy related to deceptive online identity. The participants blamed anonymity for the negativity and the lack of effective conversations, yet they still endorsed anonymity. Why?

The literature regarding online identify (see Problem Statement above) covers the area of "how" but not necessarily "why" identities are created as they are. The gap is the, "why" question.
 * Gap in Research**


 * Potential Research Questions**

1. Why do students create and endorse false identities? 2. What motivates a student to create a deceptive online identity for good and not-good situations? 3. How do they consider ramifications? 4. What do they believe they will gain from it?


 * Theory**

Here are the theories used by each of the articles.

Marshall, J.D. McLean, C.A. Huddleston, A.P. Joaquin, J. Bishop, J. || Used two tenets: New Literacy Studies framework and Gee''s (2000, as cited by Alvermann et al., 2012) notion of Discourse-identity. ||
 * Author(s) || Theoretical framework of article ||
 * Kaufmann, J.J. || "The four primary layers through which an image and its meaning are constituted" (p.8). ||
 * Yu, F.Y. & Liu, Y.H. || The theoretical framework was the benefits of student-generated questions over teacher-generated questions. ||
 * Alvermann, D.E.
 * Rosenberry, J. || Group dynamics and small-group communication and computer mediated communication ||
 * Young, K. || Situated cognition and activity theory ||

Of these theories, I may use activity theory because online deceptive behavior may have a basis as Young (2009) stated, "human cognition occurs as individuals engage in motivated, goal-directed activity . . . mediated by tools, which are culturally developed and valued" (p. 41). I, too, though think I may need to use some type of ethical behavior theory.


 * Resources for Module 3**

Alvermann, D. E., Marshall, J. D., McLean, C. A., Huddleston, A. P., Joaquin, J., & Bishop, J. (2012). Adolescents’ Web-Based Literacies, Identity Construction, and Skill Development. //Literacy Research & Instruction//, //51//(3), 179-195. doi:10.1080/19388071.2010.523135

FBI. (2009a). 2008 internet crime report. @http://www.ic3.gov/media/annualreport/2008_IC3Report.pdf FBI. (2009b). Computer intrusions. @http://www.fbi.gov/cyberinvest/computer_intrusions.htm

Kaufmann, J. (2011). Heteronarrative analysis: examining online photographic narratives. //International Journal Of Qualitative Studies In Education (QSE)//, //24//(1), 7-26. doi:10.1080/09518390903049550

Rosenberry, J. (2011). Users support online anonymity despite increasing negativity. //Newspaper Research Journal//, //32//(2), 6-19.

Young, K. (2009). Online social networking: An Australian perspective. //International Journal Of Emerging Technologies & Society//, //7//(1), 39-57.

Yu, F., & Liu, Y. (2009). Creating a psychologically safe online space for a student-generated questions learning activity via different identity revelation modes. //British Journal Of Educational Technology//, //40//(6), 1109-1123. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00905.x

=__MODULE 4__=

Grounded theory || * New theories and understanding of new phenomena are developed Case Study || * Significant amount of description and detail; spawning future studies || * No generalizability || These types of questions are better served with answers from multiple participants. A small sampling for a case study may not provide efficient results. || Stake (1994) and Yin (1984) || Phenomenology || * Provides a deep understanding of a phenomenon as experienced by the participants || * Researcher's bias must be carefully controlled Van Manen (1997) ||
 * Methodology**
 * **Research Methodology** || **Strengths** || **Weaknesses** || **Why or Why Not Use it?** || **Authoritative Source** ||
 * Qualitative
 * Rigorous emergent design
 * Detailed and systematic approach || * Time consuming
 * Lots of data, some may not lend to emergent theory
 * Finding saturation of information || I think the area is too new and too soon to come to a theory, as of yet. I think the phenomenon needs to be better understood first. || Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Strauss & Corbin (1990) ||
 * Qualitative
 * Qualitative
 * Participants must be carefully selected to have experienced the same phenomenon
 * Generalizability may not be relevant || This method provides a deep understanding of a phenomenon as experienced by the participants, which is exactly the goal of the study. || Moustakas (1994) and


 * **Research Question** || **Methodology** || **Sample** || **Data Collection** || **Statistical Analysis** ||
 * What motivates a student to create a deceptive online identity for good and not-good reasons? || Qual - Phenomenology || 20-25 high school students || Interviews/focus group || Stat analysis not applicable in qualitative. Will use notes, coding, categories, and descriptive writing of the essence of the phenomenon. ||
 * What do they believe they will gain from it? || Qual - Phenomenology || 20-25 high school students || Interviews/focus group ||^  ||
 * How do they consider the ramifications for both good and not-good reasons? || Qual - Phenomenology || 20-25 high school students || Interviews/focus group ||^  ||

Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967). //The discovery of grounded theory//. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Moustakas, C. (1994) //Phenomenological research methods.// Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stake, R.E. (1994). Case studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds), //Handbook of qualitative research// (pp. 236-247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). //Basics of qualitative researched: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.// Newberry Park, CA: Sage. Van Manen, M. (1997). //Researching lived experience: human science for an action sensitive pedagogy//. London, ON: Althouse Press. Yin, R.K. (1984). //Case study research.// Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
 * Primary Authoritative Sources**

=__**Module 5**__=


 * Significance of the Study**

The literature regarding online identify covers the area of "how" but not necessarily "why" identities are created as they are. The gap in the research is a lack of knowledge about the "why" question. Why do students create deceptive identifies? What is their thought process or rationale behind their actions? (Literature review on this gap is in the above section, Problem Section.)

Filling this gap will advance the field of educational technology by providing educators data that would help them allow their students gain the most benefit from technology, ethically and safely, avoiding the issues that develop using deceptive identities. Students can be perpetrators or victims of crimes that result in deceptive identities. Teaching them proper online behavior in this specific area will benefit their long-term, healthy online lives.

This goal improves the human condition and the social condition of online life. With the crime rates rising as mentioned in the problem statement, further data will help develop needed programs, that in the long run, may help to reduce the exponential growth of online crime. We do not want to cultivate future criminals that think they can hide behind the virtual wall of cyberspace. As well, we want to educate our students on how they can protect themselves from deceptive online strangers.


 * Dissemination of Research**

Three journals I would like to disseminate my research through are:
 * 1) Learning and Leading with Technology: This is published by one of the most credible educational technology associations (ISTE) and has a wide audience that is concerned with the use of technology in education.
 * 2) Journal of Research in Technology in Education: Being published in this peer reviewed journal would lend credibility to my research and would provide a grounded basis for future research based on my dissertation.
 * 3) Journal of Research in Character Education: This non-educational technology publication is a peer-reviewed journal with a theme that integrates with educational technology in the area of cyber ethics education.

Two conferences where I would like to present my research:


 * 1) ISTE: Over the last several years, ISTE has had few sessions about the area of cyber ethics, and the few that they have had are sold out; therefore, my topic would help add to the area but also I could receive informative feedback from the field for future research.
 * 2) Character Education Partnership Annual Conference: This conference is the equivalent of ISTE in the character education area, and they have a theme on cyber ethics but are branching out to other areas of cyber ethics; therefore, my research may help inform their branching out efforts.