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?