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?