It was unfortunate that my school’s parent-teacher interviews were scheduled last Thursday evening. I missed Lana’s presentation on the Kaiser report, and half of Roman’s report on e-learning.
At the end of Roman’s presentation, the class had a great discussion about the use of e-learning tools. I mentioned the term “creepy treehouse”; a term used to describe how the use of social networking sites can backfire on professors and teachers. Indeed, students often reject the notion of being “forced” to use social networking sites for school, when these sites were intended to be used freely for recreation/fun. Here is an explanation by Jared Stein from Utah Valley University:
in the field of educational technology a creepy treehouse is an institutionally controlled technology/tool that emulates or mimics pre-existing technologies or tools that may already be in use by the learners, or by learners’ peer groups. Though such systems may be seen as innovative or problem-solving to the institution, they may repulse some users who see them as infringement on the sanctity of their peer groups, or as having the potential for institutional violations of their privacy, liberty, ownership, or creativity. Some users may simply object to the influence of the institution.
Teachers and professors who require students to follow them on Twitter, Facebook, Wiki’s, MySpace, or other social networking sites may think they are being innovative and creative. In reality, they may be creating an artificial version of the pre-existing technology. Facebook, for example, loses all its fun if teachers require you to add them as your friends. The popularity of Facebook stems from providing users the ability to control and manage their social circles. Likewise, the appeal of Twitter is having the ability to control who you follow, and who follows your tweets. This appeal is lost when a teacher requires you to read their tweets. It is no longer really Twitter. It is required homework.
How then can teachers utilize such technology tools that do not create a “creepy treehouse”?
Firstly, teachers must respect the privacy of students’ social lives. Do not require students to add you as their Facebook friend. Keep clear the professional boundaries that should exist between students and teachers. Secondly, if a teacher decides to use social networking such as a blog or Twitter page, use it the way it was intended to be used. Professional bloggers work very hard at ensuring their blogs are regularly updated with relevant and useful content. They do this because they know if their content is not relevant, they will quickly lose viewers. So too, teachers must ensure their blogs are relevant, useful, and constantly updated. And just like other bloggers, teachers cannot require people to view their blogs. If the blog is not compelling, why should students be forced to read it? Teachers should embrace the “free market” of the “Web 2.0” Internet: people will visit blogs and Twitter sites that are compelling, interesting, and fun. Make your blog or Twitter site optional for students. Focus on providing useful content that can enhance your classroom teaching.
If there are course requirements that need to be shared online (such as eLearning courses), use educational software like Moodle, Nicenet, or FirstClass. These programs were specifically designed for educational use. They do not pretend to be social networking sites like Facebook or MySpace. Using educational software like these ones helps students differentiate their school work from their socializing. These software also helps clearly define the role of the teacher and the students.
Respect students’ private lives, separate schoolwork from online socializing, and avoid creating your own creepy treehouse.
Excellent points, Roland. Ones we need to heed. Kids need their own space, too. Besides, as teachers do we really want to know all the ins and outs of our student's personal lives? If one wants a social network type of environment, there are some out there that can be used that would not be a cross-over with students personal, social lives. I will show one in my presentation tonight. Again - some great points.
ReplyDeleteThat was a term I had yet to hear, and what it speaks to is profoundly important. It's like an encroachment on sacred space; we all need our own once in a while. The idea of optionality and choice delivers a freedom that can recognize the universality of a tool without creating anger or resentment through compelled use of it. I'll mull this for a while yet.
ReplyDeleteAffordance is often the word we use tojustify our use of certain social networking tools for educational purposes. "What is the opposite of Affordance?" Is the question I get asked every time I talk about it. This new "anti-affordance" would best describe why some of these tools may not be relevant for educational purposes. Perhaps as we define the degree of affordance of a social networking tool's appropriateness for education, we should equally carry out an exercise that defines a degree of dis-appropriateness of the same set of tools.
ReplyDelete