In our fourth Tips for Teachers of the semester, we
read and discussed the article, "Introduction: Reshaping
Campus Communication and Community through
Social Network Sites", by Nicole B. Ellison. It is published
by Educause Center for Applied Research, Study 8 2008,
in the compiled readings, Student and Information
Technology, 2008. It can also be found online at:

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0808/rs/ers08082.pdf

This article discussed the popularity of social networks,
such as Facebook and MySpace, and we talked about
how incoming freshmen now, as soon as they are told
their room assignment in the summer before starting
college, go on to Facebook and start to find out about
and communicate with not only their future roommate,
but also all the students who will be on their floor in the
dorm. This is amazingly different from just a few years
ago, when an incoming student, once presented with
the name of the roommate, would at best e-mail or
phone this person a couple of times. 

The question then arose as to whether or not professors
should go on Facebook. It would seem to make the
student-teacher relationship more informal, but would this
be good or bad? It was thought that it could certainly
become awkward if there was a dispute over grades.
Also some members present felt it would be inappropriate
for students to know private details of their lives if they
went on Facebook, and did not much welcome the
thought of a student wanting to become their “friend’
through this medium. One teacher present thought a
better option for being online with students, while
maintaining academic boundaries, is to use the
Chat feature of Sakai. 

Another teacher mentioned Steven Johnson’s book, 
Everything Bad is Good for You, and drew the
analogy that students could use these social
network sites to enlarge their social relations
network, which could be beneficial for them.
But whereas many of us present saw a potential
advantage to these networks for social reasons,
we found it hard to trace any particular academic
relevance beyond such endeavours as reaching
out to alumni or other student bodies, and
marketing courses. Possibly they could be used
for collaboration, as in peer reviews of student
papers, but there would be such a large potential
distraction, such a yawning desire once on
Facebook to trace old high school friends and
others, that its costs might outweigh its benefits.
And once again, there is always Sakai for such
activities as online peer reviews. 

Some of us had concerns, too, for the real life
implications of these social networks. What might
stop someone creating a whole new persona
online, as occurred, according to one of the
teachers present, who told us of someone who
pretended to have a Ph.D. when, in fact, he had
dropped out of college? And what might the
implications be of becoming a “public person”
akin to a superstar, without the reality of actually
being a superstar? And what again might be the
ultimate impact of being “friends’ with so many,
and does this make some of those friendships
inauthentic? 

This lead to a discussion about “bridging” relationships,
which are not built on emotional closeness but instead
on common interests, and what one person might possibly
be able to offer another in terms of job opportunities and
so on. This seems to be a utilitarian relationship, based on
how useful one person might be to another. One teacher
proposed that instead of calling this relationship a friend,
Facebook should introduce other categories, such as
“colleague, coworker” and so on. 

We moved on to talk about how it is likely that being online
helps shy people to be more courageous and get to know
others who they normally would not have a chance to know.
One teacher even talked of how she created an opportunity
for a Facebook dialogue for her 101 class prior to their final
exam, and found that those who participated actually
performed better on this exam than those who relied solely
on class discussion. 

But why use Facebook rather than Sakai? We reasoned that 
Sakai might be better as it is a defined community of the class
members, with authorized access only, rather than the more
amorphous Facebook in which people might get “lost” and
not return to the actual collaborative class discussion. It was
proposed that the platform that we use will inform the work
that we do. In Facebook some people discuss their personal
values, but some of these might be offensive in a classroom
setting. However, the argument for Facebook as opposed to 
Sakai is that more young people are familiar with Facebook,
and that this is very much the new way of communicating in
society today. 

One teacher talked of there being a very real need to network,
but she wondered if there is almost an addictive component to
much of today’s technology: the need to send text messages,
speak on the cell phone, and so on. Alcohol used to be the
source to connect, she said, whereas now people don’t need
to drink to dare to talk to someone else, but can do so online. 

A profound statement was made by one teacher who said,
“One hundred years from now, the notion of the individual
will be obsolete.” He was extrapolating from current technology,
and how when we stroll around campus, we see people cut off
from others by their headphones or cell phones. But then we
cast our minds back to one hundred years ago, and asked
whether there was networking then, and concluded that indeed
there was, albeit on a different and more local scale. There
were clubs, taverns and lodges for the men – and slightly
less for the women (such as sewing circles). Perhaps a
possible advantage of the new technology is that it is not
selective and does not preclude anyone on the basis of
gender. However, there is still the digital divide, so not all
income groups have equal access to the opportunities
that technology can provide. 

And what is the impact on academic prowess of the new
technologies? We thought that the increase of the visual
image might not necessarily help students with reading
and writing skills, as watching a film is more passive than
reading, and does not need as much imaginative input. 

We also considered the implicit imperative to respond very
quickly when receiving an electronic message, but one
teacher thought back to when Oliver Sacks came to
campus, and how he said sometimes ideas need
time to percolate for that individual to be truly creative.
Perhaps, therefore, it has less advantage for academic
writing, which needs more time for reflection. 

We concluded our meeting with the question that since today’s
13 year olds think differently from us because of being brought
up with technology, will we be ready to teach them effectively?
And what is the best way in which to relate to them?

Tips for Teachers - 4th meeting Fall 08

In our fourth Tips for Teachers of the semester, we read and discussed the article, "Introduction: Reshaping Campus Communication and Community through Social Network Sites", by Nicole B. Ellison. It is published by Educause Center for Applied Research, Study 8 2008, in the compiled readings, Student and Information Technology, 2008. It can also be found online at:

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0808/rs/ers08082.pdf

This article discussed the popularity of social networks, such as Facebook and MySpace, and we talked about how incoming freshmen now, as soon as they are told their room assignment in the summer before starting college, go on to Facebook and start to find out about and communicate with not only their future roommate, but also all the students who will be on their floor in the dorm. This is amazingly different from just a few years ago, when an incoming student, once presented with the name of the roommate, would at best e-mail or phone this person a couple of times. 

The question then arose as to whether or not professors should go on Facebook. It would seem to make the student-teacher relationship more informal, but would this be good or bad? It was thought that it could certainly become awkward if there was a dispute over grades. Also some members present felt it would be inappropriate for students to know private details of their lives if they went on Facebook, and did not much welcome the thought of a student wanting to become their “friend’ through this medium. One teacher present thought a better option for being online with students, while maintaining academic boundaries, is to use the Chat feature of Sakai. 

Another teacher mentioned Steven Johnson’s book, Everything Bad is Good for You, and drew the analogy that students could use these social network sites to enlarge their social relations network, which could be beneficial for them. But whereas many of us present saw a potential advantage to these networks for social reasons, we found it hard to trace any particular academic relevance beyond such endeavours as reaching out to alumni or other student bodies, and marketing courses. Possibly they could be used for collaboration, as in peer reviews of student papers, but there would be such a large potential distraction, such a yawning desire once on Facebook to trace old high school friends and others, that its costs might outweigh its benefits. And once again, there is always Sakai for such activities as online peer reviews. 

Some of us had concerns, too, for the real life implications of these social networks. What might stop someone creating a whole new persona online, as occurred, according to one of the teachers present, who told us of someone who pretended to have a Ph.D. when, in fact, he had dropped out of college? And what might the implications be of becoming a “public person” akin to a superstar, without the reality of actually being a superstar? And what again might be the ultimate impact of being “friends’ with so many, and does this make some of those friendships inauthentic? 

This lead to a discussion about “bridging” relationships, which are not built on emotional closeness but instead on common interests, and what one person might possibly be able to offer another in terms of job opportunities and so on. This seems to be a utilitarian relationship, based on how useful one person might be to another. One teacher proposed that instead of calling this relationship a friend, Facebook should introduce other categories, such as “colleague, coworker” and so on. 

We moved on to talk about how it is likely that being online helps shy people to be more courageous and get to know others who they normally would not have a chance to know. One teacher even talked of how she created an opportunity for a Facebook dialogue for her 101 class prior to their final exam, and found that those who participated actually performed better on this exam than those who relied solely on class discussion. 

But why use Facebook rather than Sakai? We reasoned that Sakai might be better as it is a defined community of the class members, with authorized access only, rather than the more amorphous Facebook in which people might get “lost” and not return to the actual collaborative class discussion. It was proposed that the platform that we use will inform the work that we do. In Facebook some people discuss their personal values, but some of these might be offensive in a classroom setting. However, the argument for Facebook as opposed to Sakai is that more young people are familiar with Facebook, and that this is very much the new way of communicating in society today. 

One teacher talked of there being a very real need to network, but she wondered if there is almost an addictive component to much of today’s technology: the need to send text messages, speak on the cell phone, and so on. Alcohol used to be the source to connect, she said, whereas now people don’t need to drink to dare to talk to someone else, but can do so online. 

A profound statement was made by one teacher who said, “One hundred years from now, the notion of the individual will be obsolete.” He was extrapolating from current technology, and how when we stroll around campus, we see people cut off from others by their headphones or cell phones. But then we cast our minds back to one hundred years ago, and asked whether there was networking then, and concluded that indeed there was, albeit on a different and more local scale. There were clubs, taverns and lodges for the men – and slightly less for the women (such as sewing circles). Perhaps a possible advantage of the new technology is that it is not selective and does not preclude anyone on the basis of gender. However, there is still the digital divide, so not all income groups have equal access to the opportunities that technology can provide. 

And what is the impact on academic prowess of the new technologies? We thought that the increase of the visual image might not necessarily help students with reading and writing skills, as watching a film is more passive than reading, and does not need as much imaginative input. 

We also considered the implicit imperative to respond very quickly when receiving an electronic message, but one teacher thought back to when Oliver Sacks came to campus, and how he said sometimes ideas need time to percolate for that individual to be truly creative. Perhaps, therefore, it has less advantage for academic writing, which needs more time for reflection. 

We concluded our meeting with the question that since today’s 13 year olds think differently from us because of being brought up with technology, will we be ready to teach them effectively? And what is the best way in which to relate to them?

In our fourth Tips for Teachers of the semester, we read and discussed the article, 
"Introduction: Reshaping Campus Communication and Community through Social
Network Sites", by Nicole B. Ellison. It is published by Educause Center for Applied
Research, Study 8 2008, in the compiled readings, Student and Information Technology,
2008. It can also be found online at:

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0808/rs/ers08082.pdf

This article discussed the popularity of social networks, such as Facebook and
MySpace, and we talked about how incoming freshmen now, as soon as they
are told their room assignment in the summer before starting college, go on to
Facebook and start to find out about and communicate with not only their future
roommate, but also all the students who will be on their floor in the dorm. This is
amazingly different from just a few years ago, when an incoming student, once
presented with the name of the roommate, would at best e-mail or phone this
person a couple of times. 

The question then arose as to whether or not professors should go on Facebook.
It would seem to make the student-teacher relationship more informal, but would
this be good or bad? It was thought that it could certainly become awkward if there
was a dispute over grades. Also some members present felt it would be
inappropriate for students to know private details of their lives if they went on
Facebook, and did not much welcome the thought of a student wanting to become
their “friend’ through this medium. One teacher present thought a better option for
being online with students, while maintaining academic boundaries, is to use the
Chat feature of Sakai. 

Another teacher mentioned Steven Johnson’s book, Everything Bad is Good for You,
and drew the analogy that students could use these social network sites to enlarge their
social relations network, which could be beneficial for them. But whereas many of us
present saw a potential advantage to these networks for social reasons, we found it hard
to trace any particular academic relevance beyond such endeavours as reaching out to
alumni or other student bodies, and marketing courses. Possibly they could be used for
collaboration, as in peer reviews of student papers, but there would be such a large
potential distraction, such a yawning desire once on Facebook to trace old high school
friends and others, that its costs might outweigh its benefits. And once again, there is
always Sakai for such activities as online peer reviews. 

Some of us had concerns, too, for the real life implications of these social networks.
What might stop someone creating a whole new persona online, as occurred, according
to one of the teachers present, who told us of someone who pretended to have a Ph.D.
when, in fact, he had dropped out of college? And what might the implications be of
becoming a “public person” akin to a superstar, without the reality of actually being a
superstar? And what again might be the ultimate impact of being “friends’ with so many,
and does this make some of those friendships inauthentic? 

This lead to a discussion about “bridging” relationships, which are not built on emotional
closeness but instead on common interests, and what one person might possibly be able
to offer another in terms of job opportunities and so on. This seems to be a utilitarian
relationship, based on how useful one person might be to another. One teacher proposed
that instead of calling this relationship a friend, Facebook should introduce other categories,
such as “colleague, coworker” and so on. 

We moved on to talk about how it is likely that being online helps shy people to be more
courageous and get to know others who they normally would not have a chance to know.
One teacher even talked of how she created an opportunity for a Facebook dialogue for
her 101 class prior to their final exam, and found that those who participated actually
performed better on this exam than those who relied solely on class discussion. 

But why use Facebook rather than Sakai? We reasoned that Sakai might be better as it
is a defined community of the class members, with authorized access only, rather than the
more amorphous Facebook in which people might get “lost” and not return to the actual
collaborative class discussion. It was proposed that the platform that we use will inform
the work that we do. In Facebook some people discuss their personal values, but some
of these might be offensive in a classroom setting. However, the argument for Facebook
as opposed to Sakai is that more young people are familiar with Facebook, and that this
is very much the new way of communicating in society today. 

One teacher talked of there being a very real need to network, but she wondered if there
is almost an addictive component to much of today’s technology: the need to send text
messages, speak on the cell phone, and so on. Alcohol used to be the source to connect,
she said, whereas now people don’t need to drink to dare to talk to someone else, but can
do so online. 

A profound statement was made by one teacher who said, “One hundred years from now,
the notion of the individual will be obsolete.” He was extrapolating from current technology,
and how when we stroll around campus, we see people cut off from others by their
headphones or cell phones. But then we cast our minds back to one hundred years ago,
and asked whether there was networking then, and concluded that indeed there was,
albeit on a different and more local scale. There were clubs, taverns and lodges for the
men – and slightly less for the women (such as sewing circles). Perhaps a possible
advantage of the new technology is that it is not selective and does not preclude anyone
on the basis of gender. However, there is still the digital divide, so not all income groups
have equal access to the opportunities that technology can provide. 

And what is the impact on academic prowess of the new technologies? We thought that
the increase of the visual image might not necessarily help students with reading and
writing skills, as watching a film is more passive than reading, and does not need as
much imaginative input. 

We also considered the implicit imperative to respond very quickly when receiving an
electronic message, but one teacher thought back to when Oliver Sacks came to campus,
and how he said sometimes ideas need time to percolate for that individual to be truly
creative. Perhaps, therefore, it has less advantage for academic writing, which needs
more time for reflection. 

We concluded our meeting with the question that since today’s 13 year olds think differently
from us because of being brought up with technology, will we be ready to teach them
effectively? And what is the best way in which to relate to them?

Tips for Teachers: Fall 08 - Meeting 4

In our fourth Tips for Teachers of the semester, we read and discussed the article, "Introduction:
Reshaping Campus Communication and Community through Social Network Sites", by Nicole B.
Ellison. It is published by Educause Center for Applied Research, Study 8 2008, in the compiled
readings, Student and Information Technology, 2008. It can also be found online at:

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0808/rs/ers08082.pdf

This article discussed the popularity of social networks, such as Facebook and MySpace, and we
talked about how incoming freshmen now, as soon as they are told their room assignment in the
summer before starting college, go on to Facebook and start to find out about and communicate
with not only their future roommate, but also all the students who will be on their floor in the dorm.
This is amazingly different from just a few years ago, when an incoming student, once presented
with the name of the roommate, would at best e-mail or phone this person a couple of times. 

The question then arose as to whether or not professors should go on Facebook. It would seem to
make the student-teacher relationship more informal, but would this be good or bad? It was thought
that it could certainly become awkward if there was a dispute over grades. Also some members
present felt it would be inappropriate for students to know private details of their lives if they went on
Facebook, and did not much welcome the thought of a student wanting to become their “friend’
through this medium. One teacher present thought a better option for being online with students,
while maintaining academic boundaries, is to use the Chat feature of Sakai. 

Another teacher mentioned Steven Johnson’s book, Everything Bad is Good for You, and drew the
analogy that students could use these social network sites to enlarge their social relations network,
which could be beneficial for them. But whereas many of us present saw a potential advantage to
these networks for social reasons, we found it hard to trace any particular academic relevance
beyond such endeavours as reaching out to alumni or other student bodies, and marketing courses.
Possibly they could be used for collaboration, as in peer reviews of student papers, but there would
be such a large potential distraction, such a yawning desire once on Facebook to trace old high
school friends and others, that its costs might outweigh its benefits. And once again, there is
always Sakai for such activities as online peer reviews. 

Some of us had concerns, too, for the real life implications of these social networks. What might
stop someone creating a whole new persona online, as occurred, according to one of the teachers
present, who told us of someone who pretended to have a Ph.D. when, in fact, he had dropped out
of college? And what might the implications be of becoming a “public person” akin to a superstar,
without the reality of actually being a superstar? And what again might be the ultimate impact of
being “friends’ with so many, and does this make some of those friendships inauthentic? 

This lead to a discussion about “bridging” relationships, which are not built on emotional closeness
but instead on common interests, and what one person might possibly be able to offer another in
terms of job opportunities and so on. This seems to be a utilitarian relationship, based on how
useful one person might be to another. One teacher proposed that instead of calling this relationship
a friend, Facebook should introduce other categories, such as “colleague, coworker” and so on. 

We moved on to talk about how it is likely that being online helps shy people to be more
courageous and get to know others who they normally would not have a chance to know. One
teacher even talked of how she created an opportunity for a Facebook dialogue for her 101 class
prior to their final exam, and found that those who participated actually performed better on this
exam than those who relied solely on class discussion. 

But why use Facebook rather than Sakai? We reasoned that Sakai might be better as it is a
defined community of the class members, with authorized access only, rather than the more
amorphous Facebook in which people might get “lost” and not return to the actual collaborative
class discussion. It was proposed that the platform that we use will inform the work that we do. In
Facebook some people discuss their personal values, but some of these might be offensive in a
classroom setting. However, the argument for Facebook as opposed to Sakai is that more young
people are familiar with Facebook, and that this is very much the new way of communicating in
society today. 

One teacher talked of there being a very real need to network, but she wondered if there is almost
an addictive component to much of today’s technology: the need to send text messages, speak on
the cell phone, and so on. Alcohol used to be the source to connect, she said, whereas now people
don’t need to drink to dare to talk to someone else, but can do so online. 

A profound statement was made by one teacher who said, “One hundred years from now, the
notion of the individual will be obsolete.” He was extrapolating from current technology, and how
when we stroll around campus, we see people cut off from others by their headphones or cell
phones. But then we cast our minds back to one hundred years ago, and asked whether there was
networking then, and concluded that indeed there was, albeit on a different and more local scale.
There were clubs, taverns and lodges for the men – and slightly less for the women (such as sewing
circles). Perhaps a possible advantage of the new technology is that it is not selective and does not
preclude anyone on the basis of gender. However, there is still the digital divide, so not all income
groups have equal access to the opportunities that technology can provide. 

And what is the impact on academic prowess of the new technologies? We thought that the
increase of the visual image might not necessarily help students with reading and writing skills, as
watching a film is more passive than reading, and does not need as much imaginative input. 

We also considered the implicit imperative to respond very quickly when receiving an electronic
message, but one teacher thought back to when Oliver Sacks came to campus, and how he said
sometimes ideas need time to percolate for that individual to be truly creative. Perhaps, therefore,
it has less advantage for academic writing, which needs more time for reflection. 

We concluded our meeting with the question that since today’s 13 year olds think differently from us
because of being brought up with technology, will we be ready to teach them effectively? And what
is the best way in which to relate to them?

Third Tips for Teachers meeting: Fall 08

In our third Tips for Teachers of the semester, we read and discussed the article, “A Nation of
Wimps”, by Hara Estroff Marano, in Psychology Today, 2004. It can also be found at
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-2004.

We started our discussion with one member present playing ‘devil’s advocate’ by saying, in defense of parents hovering more over their children, that there are more dangers in the world today and so more reason for parental concern. Another followed this point by saying that when he was a child, he used to run off and play alone in the woods, but if parents allowed a child to do this nowadays, they might be arrested. Since we live in a more litigious society, it might be that parents feel they need to be overprotective, to avoid being sued.

It used to be, we thought, that childhood had more emphasis on play and fantasy, with children finding ways to amuse themselves. Children took more risks, used their imagination, and jumped and ran about over hard surfaces, whereas in today’s playgrounds, the ground usually has a soft coating, and parent seem ready to catch a child, even before he or she has fallen. Using their imagination is important to children, in terms of solving all sorts of problems, and even in knowing how to deal with bullies. But now not only is play generally more organized, but also there is the impact of electronic games, which leave less room for imagination and creativity.

Some argued, however, that the Jenkins piece, for example, shows that children are still being creative on the fan fiction websites, and one teacher present said, “The human spirit fills the space that is given to it”.

We moved on to say that students today need to be resilient, and often are not, which is why some react badly to taking Expository Writing, and are unable to take the risks we encourage them to take. One teacher commented that usually he hands papers back at the end of class, but recently had to hand them back at the start of class, and witnessed some students crying about their grades. He said it was hard to see adults crying, at which another teacher questioned whether they were really adults, since they want their teachers to tell them what to do, and which quotations to use. This implies that students are not thinking for themselves, but one teacher asked if students have ever thought for themselves, especially when education was focused around memorization.

Some teachers confirmed the article’s view that many students are depressed, and that substance abuse is on the rise. More young people seek psychiatric help or see a psychotherapist, and there seems to be less stigma about openly speaking about this. It was also mentioned that, perhaps in reaction to parents having hovered so much around their children, that students remain close and dependent on their parents. One teacher talked of how a student of hers had a friend who died, and she was impressed with how immediately her mother was there for her. Another teacher asked whether her students saw her as the ‘mother figure’, and there was talk about the need to define boundaries.

We also see examples of students asking their parents for help in writing their papers. One student openly admitted that he had asked his father for help, and indeed his father had rewritten entire paragraphs. However, we agreed that the more resilient and independent students are often those who are able to succeed academically.

Some teachers said that they thought that we are currently living in an environment of depression, as it increases business for drug companies, therapists and lawyers. But some also said that there is tremendous pressure on students to succeed, and go on to lofty careers, and this can promote depression and certainly stress for these students. Therefore we should not blame the victim of depression (the students), but instead look for ways by which we could help them and assist them in feeling more comfortable about taking risks and coming out of their ‘safe zone’. Additionally it’s important to differentiate between pseudo-depression (sometimes caused, some people present thought, by giving drugs to help performance) and real depression. The fact that some people might be swayed by advertising from the drug companies to take certain drugs, often masks the distinction between real and pseudo-depressive states.

Some teachers present mentioned how many students are living away from home for the first time, and this might be hard for some. And this might increase their dependence on the teacher, and the hope that the teacher will like them. They often think, possibly as a result of high school thinking, that if they give the teacher what they think he or she wants, they will get a good grade. And it is for this reason (amongst others) that many are uncomfortable in peer review.

One teacher said he thought that the types of struggles students face today have been there for the last twenty years, and the only difference is that now they are better publicized. However, he did go on to say that students are now more risk averse and less adventurous. It was suggested that if parents really do become so over-involved in the lives of their children, and if children also, as Twenge states, are given an inflated self esteem, they might end up being completely confused about their real feelings.

One member present, though, shifted perspective in an interesting way by suggesting that this was a middle and upper class angle at viewing the situation, as the less privileged in society, such as the poor or recent immigrants, might have been forced to be much more independent. As someone said, this article does not describe the lives of many African American and Hispanic students, whose parents might be out at work, or for other reasons absent.

But the article might resonate for those students from higher echelons of society, many of whom have an idealist version of how they should live, including going to graduate school and then on to a job on Wall Street (or maybe not the latter, nowadays). And students might see themselves as becoming detached from the parental home, yet still are attached by the virtual umbilical cord of the cell phone. But in general, as someone remarked, American society is one of forgiveness, yet does this make us perform better, or does it hamper resilience?