There is much debate about issues surrounding online social networking; many issues are related to how these networks fit or clash with educational settings since the largest growing number of users of these networks comes from teens. I gleaned from this week’s readings comments that I felt were significant to the discussion.
For example, Williams does state that students in class are rude by being distracted by the IM, Facebook, or whatever else they have open on their computer—an updated equivalent of sending messages on paper, doodling, or shooting peas through a straw. In other words, students have always been easily distracted. It is hard to capture and keep someone’s attention. I feel that a well taught class with a dynamic instructor who involves students in discussion will not have much problem from the distractions. The distractions are more the effect of a poor class than the cause of the disruptions. Williams argues that professors should reorganize courses to make students an integral part of the learning process. Does he imply that today’s students are more demanding and less respectful or attentive? More self-centred? Perhaps the fast pace of multi-tasking and partial attention resulting from the many media available to students has moved ahead much faster than teaching methods. But I’m not sure that in-depth learning can occur in a fast-paced environment.
Roush and Barrett discuss the dangers of online social networks—adult predators, harassment and bullying. Such activities are unpleasant and real, but not new. The problem is that they are spreading since social networks online are so visible and large. I agree with Barrett that there is a need to educate children to use online social networking tools wisely, to be aware of potential dangers and know how to react. The frequent mention in the articles of how unaware teens are of the digital footprint they are leaving online is a comment I have encountered many times in news articles. Teens are not looking at the larger picture of the longer term consequences of their placing very personal pictures and opinionated comments online (in terms of these being visible to future employers, police, harassers). But then, teens were never known to look beyond the here and now at the long term consequences of actions. It will be impossible to regulate access, and attempts such as banning online social networks from schools may well drive teens underground.
Hewitt and Forte’s study of Facebook use by faculty at a university found that one-third of the students who have faculty on Facebook feel that the faculty don’t belong there (an opinion expressed more often by female students than by male students).
I can understand that the students want private conversations.
I also think there is an advantage to getting to know faculty better--
perhaps the lack of control on online social networks makes them less appropriate than get-togethers in person for such interactions.
It is exactly a lack of control that Hewitt and Forte discuss, and their conclusion about online social networks seems realistic: using the networks is a trade-off. The user needs to balance the potential social gain associated with new opportunities to establish ties against the social pain of relinquishing control over the presentation of oneself.
I enjoyed the discussion between Jenkins and Boyd about MySpace and the consequences of introducing the Deleting Online Predators Act: although both are convincing supporters of online social networking and present many advantages, they approach the topic from very different angles, reflective of their experience and research. They emphasize the importance of educating parents in how to communicate with their children about their experiences online and about how to deal with dangers. They point out that an effect of the legislation would be the banning or restricting use of computers in many schools, thereby increasing the digital divide.
Online social networks are here to stay--let the users beware.
No comments:
Post a Comment