motivation to write – EDUC 342: Child Development & New Technologies https://ed342.gse.stanford.edu Wed, 10 Feb 2016 02:41:45 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.6.1 DQC Week 6 – Writing in the Wild https://ed342.gse.stanford.edu/dqc-week-6-writing-in-the-wild/ https://ed342.gse.stanford.edu/dqc-week-6-writing-in-the-wild/#respond Wed, 10 Feb 2016 02:41:45 +0000 http://ed342.gse.stanford.edu/?p=1425 I’m curious about if and how the anonymity of the virtual affinity spaces affect motivation of children who use these spaces. Curwood et al. noted that motivation was increased when Sheena received “in-depth criticism”; however, I wonder for the general population- how often do these in-depth criticisms occur? I think these virtual forums do provide a space in which you can be completely anonymous because you are behind a screen with an audience who cannot see you in your flesh- and respond to you in real time. I assume these forums are moderated to prevent vulgar language and harsh criticism, so the writer can be shielded from them before they are posted. If there is a moderator for these forums, I’m curious if this sense of “safety” contributes to the motivated child’s engagement and contributions; and can this “protection” create a false sense of what the real world may be like? If there is no moderator, how does shallow criticism affect their motivation to continue (or discontinue) their practice?

Additionally, I was hoping there would be greater discussion on the initial motivation to write in the first place. Albeit Curwood et al. recognized the study’s limitation in selecting three exceptional subjects- all three had some inclination to write already; the virtual affinity space allowed them more avenues and motivation to pursue writing. How effective is using these virtual spaces in children whose personal interests and interests in writing do not intersect?

]]> https://ed342.gse.stanford.edu/dqc-week-6-writing-in-the-wild/feed/ 0