Social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook have now become a ubiquitous part of many students' lives.

The value of social networking has been defined, in one sense, as the collective power of community to help inform perspectives that would not be unilaterally formed - e.g. the best thinking comes from many not one. Others argue that significant time spent on social networking platforms actually distract students from their studies. So a question emerges, could the introduction of social networking tools be useful in a formal classroom setting? Additionally, is the concept of social networking a progressive, but legitimate, form of student-to-student and student-to-teacher collaboration? The Economist (Economist.Com) is sponsoring a series of debates on the future of education. Each debate topic considers the educational impacts of technology, globalization, and changing nature of social relationships. The third (and final) debate, which runs from from January 15th through January 25th, focuses on social networking, specifically on the proposition : Proposition: Social networking technologies will bring large [positive] changes to educational methods, in and out of the classroom. . The debate is based on an online variant of the Oxford Debate rules each speaker has three chances to advance his view an opening statement, a rebuttal, and a final summary. Observers (who must register) may participate, mainly though a discussion with the moderator who will raise relevant points to the debaters. In addition, Observers may also vote for the side of the proposition they most agree with. Speaking to the Affirmative: Ewan McIntosh, National Adviser on Learning and Technology Futures for Learning and Teaching Scotland. Mr McIntosh writes for The Guardian newspaper and the BBC on social media and learning issues, speaks internationally and consults for organisations on how social media can be harnessed for to improve learning in the organisation Spealing to the Negative: Michael Bugeja, Director of Greenlee School of Journalism and Communication, ISU. Mr. ,Bugeja is the author of 21 books, with research often being cited by NYT and IHT to name a few, Dr Bugeja was among the first to analyse the use of Facebook before many professors realised that most of their students were already registered and of Second Life before many students had ever heard of it. Moderator: Robert Cottrell, Deputy Editor of Economist.com. Mr Cottrell has been deputy editor of Economist.com for the past two years, and online editor of Intelligent Life magazine since its re-launch this year. He is based in New York.

As a follow-up to the lesson I described in my last post, Mr. Magadance and I facilitated a student debate about the pros and cons of social networking in education. In The Machine is Us/ing Us, Michael Wesch demonstrates how digital/hypertext/the web is no longer just linking information; web 2.0 is linking people . . . people sharing, trading, and collaborating . . . and We are the web. Wesch concludes with the suggestions that, Well need to rethink a few things: copyright, authorship, identity, ethics, aesthetics, rhetorics, governance, privacy, commerce, love, family, our selves. I would

add to education to that list. Using the debate at Economist.com as a primary resource, we considered both sides of the question about whether or not social networking technologies will bring large [positive] changes to educational methods, in and out of the classroom. I was interested to note that although most students agreed with the proposition in favor of social networking, closer analysis of both sides of the argument resulted in stronger convictions both for and against the proposition.

A social network is a social structure made of nodes (which are generally individuals or organizations) that are tied by one or more specific types of interdependency, such as values, visions, idea, financial exchange, friends, kinship, dislike, conflict, trade, web links, sexual relations, disease transmission (epidemiology), or airline routes. The resulting structures are often very complex."

The Economist debate on Social Networking Systems has concluded, though final thoughts can still be posted. And I wanted to suggest a few things I have learned so far. First, here is the complete proposition: "Social networking technologies will bring large [positive] changes to educational methods, in and out of the classroom: Social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook have now become a ubiquitous part of many students lives. The value of social networking has been defined, in one sense, as the collective power of community to help inform perspectives that would not be unilaterally formed e.g. the best thinking comes from many not one. Others argue that significant time spent on social networking platforms actually distracts students from their studies. So a question emerges, could the introduction of social networking tools be useful in a formal classroom setting? Additionally, is the concept of social networking a progressive, but legitimate, form of student-to-student and student-to-teacher collaboration?" In the debate many themes appeared. It began with Ewan McIntosh providing significant evidence of the transformative power of these tools in and out of classrooms in Scotland. "I've been fortunate to work with thousands of school children and hundreds of teachers, creating mini

social networks based around a rather traditional 'social object': the classroom. Students have been empowered to publish not just their best work, but the many drafts it takes to get there. They've received feedback from 'real' people outside school and, surprisingly often, the occasional expert has paid a visit (my personal favourite: the professional diver that corrected one student ended up being invited to visit the school to demonstrate the various bits of kit that go into a marine biology dive). "And even if it's not happening in schools, learning is about far more than what happens behind the school gate. Lifelong learning is the policy du jour, and rightly so. We are all learners, all the time. Ubiquitous social technologies help us connect to those who can help us learn when we're outside the domain of formal education. One of the biggest iTunes success stories this past year has been Coffee Break Spanish, run by a teacher from his home in a seaside town on the West of Scotland. "You've got Spanish native speakers learning French with Coffee Break French, helping out those from around the world learning Spanish on the Coffee Break Spanish blog," says Mark Pentleton, the 'teacher' whose 21st century remit is closer to that of a living breathing social network for a band of young and old learners of foreign languages." Dr. Michael Bugeja, expressing the "Con" side, was deeply concerned about power, authority, motives, and "time-honored standards." "Interfaces that access social networks present a host of problems, depending on the device. Motives also vary by brand. The interface of an Apple iPhone differs from that of a Dell laptop. If we use handhelds to access social networks, odds are we will purchase digital music, videos or ringtones; or else, those devices query us daily on whether we might sample such merchandise. If we use laptops, we cope with software downloads or peripherals that also solicit online orders. We deal with these factors so often that we accept them without complaint. "Technology has made us compliant. "We must analyze use of social networks in education with a high degree of skepticism to ensure timehonored standards. Otherwise we may realize belatedly that those standards had value social rather than financialand that we inadvertently shortchanged our students who above all need to think critically and interact interpersonally to succeed in a diverse, multicultural world. "Social networks advertise access to this diverse world while simultaneously confining users to affinity groups so as to sell, sell, sell. "I, for one, am not buying." Though the arguments wandered over many areas as this "Oxford-Style" debate went on, these essential themes never changed. On one side there are those (including myself) who see expanding communication technologies as new opportunities to connect, relate, study, and learn, and who are willing to take risks to explore how best to guide our students through this gathering world. On the other side are those more concerned about the risks than the benefits. As commenter Neil Shrubak said at the end of the conversation,"The Proposition argues that social networking signals a dawn of a new age of learning that will allow us to discard the baggage of old, stifling educational systems. Out with the old, in with the new. Hmm This is the oldest rhetoric in the world. In the last 5,000 years it has not created much, but bloodshed. The more utopian the vision, the more blood spilled because of it. Dont call this a conservative or a retrograde approach. My position is, indeed, as liberal as they get. Evolution over

revolution. Cheers to Bacon, Newton, Darwin. Down with Mao, Stalin and both Kims." The rebuttal to those fears goes like this - as I noted in my ("PostColonialTech") last comment, "SNS alters students' expectations of learning and truth, making it more collaborative, less hierarchical, perhaps less bound to certain "centres of learning." Yet that does not mean that it makes knowledge acquisition easier - it may, indeed, make it much more complex, much more difficult. But - here's the thing - I am not sure that in learning "easier" (as in "simpler") is the better thing. It is simpler to hear either Dr. Bugeja or Mr. McIntosh lecture and accept (whomever) point of view. It is more complex, yet to me richer and more rewarding, toparticipate in this SNS conversation - even if you cannot see whatever credentials I might have hanging on my wall. And even if you - or I - lack the credentials which might, under older systems of technology ("the lecture hall") allow us major roles in the debate. " and Jon Pincus adds (from his blog), "...social networks can also make a huge positive impact on some underlying issues in the education field. Start with the exclusion and marginalization of a lot of voices and from debates held in the halls of power. Again use this debate as an example: no current or recent students in The Economists roster; the speakers, Moderator, and guest participants all currently occupy positions of (relative) privilege; and the tone is often condescending towards practitioners (as opposed to experts). Social networking technologies make it easier to broaden the conversation, with people bringing their friends and acquaintances in environments that are more inclusive and creating opportunities to network together, creating connections among existing networks that didnt exist before." So, while there are many issues, including questions regarding the understanding of history (Dr. Bugeja at one point takes time to blast Gutenberg, who, "printed a few Bibles but was better known in his time for disseminating the junk mail of the 15th centuryindulgences."), and questions regarding an understanding of technology (Dr. Bugeja makes an explicit distinction between "tools" - such as a chalkboard - and "technology," - "why technology is not a tool like a ruler or chalk board but an autonomous system that changes radically anything it touches without itself being changed much at all" while I think of chalkboards, books, even lecture halls and classrooms as obvious forms of technology), and a brief, if esoteric, argument about what is and what isn't a "Social Networking System," I still find myself believing that where you stand on this issue relates principally to questions of power, and thus fear.

If you believe that education, as we have known it over the past two centuries - that is, formalized, structured, hierarchical, and occurring in a specific setting, has generally worked well - for yourself, your family, and/or the world, then you will likely find the idea of social networking as an educational strategy disturbing, because, by its definition, it slices through hierarchy and alters authority. But if you see the world as needing a dramatically more flexible, more collaborative, more open form of education as we attempt to reach across the huge chasms of difference in human experience, you will likely find the idea of social networking as an educational strategy so powerful as to be worth the investments in time, money, training, as well as in terms of the risks which come with any change. One of the critical things about Social Networking Systems is that authority is a flexible idea. Braha and Bar-Yam (2006) found that "authority" (the "highly connected nodes") in a social network changed day-byday, even when participants were much the same. [1] Contrast that with a lecture hall (one highly connected node that is constant through the semester) or the traditional classroom (with one primary highly connected mode - the teacher - and a few lesser-connected nodes - the "top" students, again as constants). The structure of the technology of the lecture hall or classroom literally works against the acceptance of distributed expertise. It is hard, very hard, to stand up from the back row and declare that the central authority might be mistaken. It is very hard for a fourteen-year-old to demonstrate knowledge on a topic superior to that of the teacher. And it is almost impossible for either of those "interrupters" to pull in the expertise (via human interaction or data) that would prove their point. Also impossible to instantly reach outside that room to ask questions from a larger library of data. SNS reverses these issues. On a social networking site it is difficult to maintain authority. I can challenge Dr. Bugeja in ways I would never think of doing in a classroom. Everything he says can be loudly doubted, assaulted, even insulted. He can no longer control the discussion. But, I can easily bring my expertise in. I can (often) easily track the experiences of those making agreeing or disagreeing statements. I can look up data and put it where everyone can see it. I do not need credentials to enter, but, in ways unique to the structure, I must quickly establish my credentials. It is indeed messier, more complex, in many ways more difficult. But I would argue that it can also be richer, more inquisitive, and in many ways, far more human. At the end, debate moderator Robert Cottrell brings up one commenter:

"As we move towards the close, I am going to pull out a line from JOHNNAUGHTON that I think merits reflection. "Social networking, he says, is "intrinsically non-hierarchical and largely uncontrollable. It's therefore a poor fit with our hierarchical and tightly-controlled educational institutionsat every level from kindergarten to university. Social networking could conceivably have beneficial effects in educationbut only if the social structures implicit in our educational system adapt to accept it." "It seems to me that if Mr Naughton's first sentence is correct, then it is revolution, more than an adaptation, which is required, for social networking to make its way in education. And I am not sure that the proponents of the motion have made that clear." I hope I have made this clear. I believe that I and others, like Ewan McIntosh, come to be proponents of SNS systems in education because we believe that a revolution is necessary. I know that I look at schools every day and wonder at the cruelty and meanness of the environment, of the way learning and creativity are limited and stifled, of the high percentage of students for whom our "time-honored" systems do not work. That is not to say that SNS systems should be our only form of learning environment, but it does suggest that there is a reason that you often have to drag children to school, while having to drag them away from their computers and mobiles. To the question: "could the introduction of social networking tools be useful in a formal classroom setting? Additionally, is the concept of social networking a progressive, but legitimate, form of student-to-student and student-to-teacher collaboration?"Part A: Yes, useful and transformational. Even the temporary alteration of the power structure in the classroom engages different students in different ways - opens possibilities - alters both self-perceptions and world understandings. Part B: Yes, progressive AND legitimate, and again, transformational. Used properly, "teaching will never be quite the same," Nor, I might add, should it be.

The principle offering that social networking can make to education methods that a connection with another human is beneficial to learning - has virtually gone unchallenged. We have all enjoyed the ability to talk publicly about these issues with someone else, someone we may not even know. We've enjoyed the insights from others, we've enjoyed learning from each other. We have networked and learned from it. It's also been fascinating to observe to-ing and fro-ing around our expectations of education in 2008, many of which fall far short of what current educational research shows as our most promising opportunities for improvement. Social networking's capacity to change educational methods for the better is undermined not only by differing understandings of the very tools and practices online, but by the underlining pedagogy that we are expecting to see in our classrooms. The discussions have revealed an almost submissive approach to effecting change, whether we are teachers, researchers, parents or students, blaming lack of change on something else, whether that be politics or assessment protocols. The concepts of assessment for learning, particularly the value of peer- and selfassessment of work coupled with explicit, written-down or recorded logs of learning, are not recognized as a valuable norm in, arguably, the majority of our planet's classrooms. This, despite seminal research published ten years ago (Black and Wiliam's "Inside the Black Box") and world league table-beating countries using these practices showing otherwise. Futurelab's social media research shows that it's not only the communication and connections created but also the creation of new media for that communication that adds value to the educational method. 'Self reporting' via podcast led to 76% of students working better with each other than before, 65% better at understanding problems and 59% becoming better at communicating ideas. Collaboration and communication help us understand the world around us better than simply sucking up information from one-way sources such as the textbook and chalk-and-talk teacher. Ultimately, we're already seeing that learning 'in the classroom' is, in the big scheme of educational methodology, playing second fiddle to learning outside the classroom, learning from experience.

Lifelong learning is the policy du jour, and a worthy one at that. Today's citizens, let alone tomorrow's ones, have to learn about learning above all. Those who remain dependent on the traditional unnetworked informationdelivery world of learning will manage, if they're lucky, just to survive. In order to understand politics, business, other cultures and other points of view it seems almost imperative that we are not dependent on what our high school teacher or university lecturer told us. We need to have a lifelong set of peer-teachers on whom we can rely to thrive and social networks provide that ever-changing network of peers. Rightly, my opponent worries about where the basics of this networked renaissance are going to come from. Social networks of the commercial variety, that is Facebook, Bebo, Ning et al, may have a place in those countries where it is unlikely that millions will be spent on Government-sponsored social networks of the kind we see in Scotland (www.glowscotland.org.uk). Increasingly, social networks around cell phone technology will be more useful for much of the developing world, as well as many developed countries, where mobile technology is streaks ahead of wired internet. The whole notion of trust and expertise has once more been thrust into the limelight, with several commenters unsure of this debater's 'expertise' to provide worthwhile substance on the issue at hand. Whether information is justifiable, correct or worthwhile clearly has an impact on whether social networking's inevitable influence on educational methods will be a positive or a negative one. While comment is free, information is sacred. Cue the growing ranks of top universities and hoards of school teachers who freely share their resources, teaching and learning research and lesson ideas on the web. Thousands of lifelong learners are already taking to free course materials being offered on the web, course at MIT Open Courseware or Open Yale. Information looks likely to remain sacred. But simply using the web as a postman to deliver innumerable PDFs and video lectures is not enough. Learners crave more interaction with those sharing their interest. Distance learning courses have long been trying to replicate the social buzz of the post-lecture coffee shop or library chatter, and increasingly their portals resemble elements of our Facebooks, Flickrs, MySpaces and blogs. It's not that the chatter need change or misrepresent the facts, but that the conversation and connections help ground new learning in our minds.

Making social connections around learning is not a new idea, though social networks mean it takes less time and, given the potential for reaching around the globe for these networks, the difference in background of those involved can be refreshingly wide. All of this might seem to fundamentally undermine traditional schooling, when the most worthwhile interactions appear only to happen online. We are certainly beginning to challenge the notion of a classroom that was set up over 100 years ago in the light of an industrial revolution, that required vast numbers of people to be filled up with knowledge to be thrown into the workplace quickly, the smokestack school in more than one sense. But this notion has indeed been challenged for far longer than online social networks have been around, but little change incremental or radical - is reaching into classroom practice. There is hope, though: social networks have started to have an accelerating effect on the practical implementation of the ideas originally published by the Ivan Illiches of this world, through the online actions and interactions of a growing innovative band of social networking school-builders, curriculum designers, teachers, parents and students. It is worth remembering that, within the constraints and readership of Economist.com, we are not tackling the billions on this small planet whose most basic "classroom education" barely exists, for whom social networking is not just a vague term, but an unknown one. My hope for the future is that these children will receive an education that has learnt from our mistakes, our arguments and our successes, and that we might indeed learn from their progress. Thankfully, these far more fundamental changes are likely to occur faster than they could have done even five years ago, with the digital breadcrumbs of all our journeys available and openly questionable in the months and years to come.
Skip to... Moderator

Pro Con

The opposition's closing remarks

Jan 23rd 2008 | Dr Michael Bugeja When I accepted the offer to debate the "con" side in an online forum using Oxford-Union rules, I knew that mine would be a losing proposition. Because I criticize technology, many assume that I am afraid of itso much so, in factthat I let it rule my world. Welcome to my world as an administrator: Technology costs money. Few participants commenting on this debate, in The Economist, no less, acknowledged that reality. Here's mine: Currently my building at Iowa State University requires repairs to its heating and cooling systems totaling $280,000. My request for deferred maintenance was denied. So I had to scrape together $22,000 for patchwork, moving our servers from one room to another that turned out to be too warm, and then moving them back again. Then we had to deal with photocopiers overheating, and that cost more money. Social network advocates may presume applications are free because somebody else is paying for them. Often, it is the teacher and librarian who fail to realize tech funds come out of salaries, facilities and pockets of students whose debt rises with each new virtual ploy to engage them. Even experts presume that some services are free. This week the Chronicle of Higher Education, for which I write, sent out this email alert: Colleges are not professional technology providers. But students have long counted on institutions to provide them with reliable e-mail for academic and personal use.

As students place heavier and heavier demands on networking services, college officials have recognized that commercial vendors, such as Google and Microsoft, can provide better e-mail service at a price that's hard to beat free. Free? How generous of Google and Microsoft! With AOL and Yahoo, they control most of the online advertising revenue in the United States. Nothing they do is for free. Track back now to my opening argument assessing new media, and you'll find a reference to service terms. Google and Microsoft e-mail services are offered at a price that many are not willing to pay, and that is, bearing the cost of litigation that will ensue to secure records and transcripts between students and faculty involved in legal disputes or code violations. Taxpayers own those records, and by outsourcing e-mail, we may force them to pay again to acquire them. If academic institutions realise that they cannot underwrite the cost of e-mail, how, pray tell, do you expect them to underwrite social networks? Oh. I forgot. They are free. One participant wrote: "The vast majority of social network users could care less what is done with the data. So Facebook knows I like The Office and I'm 22. The horror!" The horror for me as an administrator would be disclosures on a network with restrictive service terms in an investigation of data that violates our Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. The real question for Pro advocates is: "What are you willing to sacrifice to fund those networks and other technologies infiltrating the classroom?" Why are you so afraid of assessing technology before investing in it? Isn't it ethical to inform constituents that we can underwrite the professor or the processor but sometimes not both? Another participant explicates my questions in the opening argument without realizing that they are based on administrative methods to assess systems. He ends noting that medieval scribes "battled Gutenberg for the same reasons. It is not so much a fear of the future as an inability to comprehend the past."

Yes, Gutenberg printed a few Bibles but was better known in his time for disseminating the junk mail of the 15th centuryindulgences. I cover that and the past in "Interpersonal Divide: The Search for Community in a Technological Age" (Oxford, 2005). Here is an excerpt: It took a generation, about 65 years, before Martin Luther emerged to aright the new medium of moveable type and set it on a more balanced path. Luther proved that truth is greater than authority 218 years before German migr John Peter Zenger's acquittal on charges of seditious libel for criticizing the royal governor in the New York Weekly Journal. As such, Bill Gates is to Guttenberg as Luther is to some yet unnamed mogul. That person is likely to be a media expert or computer specialist because she or he will use one or both mediums "out of love for the truth and from desire to elucidate it." Nobody can predict what will be invented or transformed to meet this challenge; but there will be distinct hallmarks: a shift from economic toward transcendent truth, from corporate toward collective empowerment, and from social disenfranchisement toward civic engagement. Social networks simulate that engagement. Simulation of experience is at the heart of my concerns involving networks and, by extension, virtual worlds. The emerging generation has had simulation foisted on them by their parents and grandparents from interactive toys to Internet. In the process, we have eliminated a sense of awe in many of our learners, the notion that there is something greater than themselves which, when realized, undermines marketing. In conclusion, I want to return to the stereotype that I fear technology and with it, the loss of my world. I am known for many things, but fear is not one of them. I imagine my university president, provost and editors at times wish that I possessed more fear. I was fearless as a reporter, too, putting myself in harm's way for the public good. And it takes courage to take on losing propositions, as mine inevitably will be. For the record, my scholarly goal is to document my objections for future retrieval. (Memo to myself: Make paper copies.) On that note, there may be one fear unacknowledged until now, and that is, "Did I, as an administrator and teacher for 30 years, help my students acquire the

intellectual skills to resolve challenges that await them environmentally, culturally and interpersonally in the physical rather than virtual world?" My and your children and grandchildren should be so lucky as to inherit my world for another far scarcer in resources may await them. That, above all, is the losing proposition that needs to be addressed in this or in a future debate by educators, journalists and legislators everywhere.

Given that MySpace and Facebook are ubiquitous, can social networking be defined as the collective power of community to help inform perspectives that would not be unilaterally formed or is it simply a distraction for students? Can these tools could be used in the classroom? While I think that the Economists question is quite intriguing (albeit a bit problematically defined), I was sorely disappointed with the two responses. On the Pro side is Ewan McIntosh. He argues that SNSs are about helping learners become more world aware, more communicative, learning from each other, understanding first hand what makes the world go around. He talks about the use of mini-social networks for media sharing, but his description sounds more like blogs than SNSs to me. He (rightly) critiques the archaic educational styles, talking vaguely about web and SNSs without really explaining how the latter can help reform the former. On the Con side is Michael Bugeja. He talks about interfaces, how students might misuse technology, and about how Facebook and MySpace are all simply about revenue generation for their respective companies. He then makes an odd techno-determinist claim and then talks about how pedagogy changes to fit interfaces. He then asks a bunch of (problematic) questions. Sadly, I think that both completely missed the point. Im frustrated w ith Ewan for collapsing all social technologies into social networking and Im frustrated with Michael for being so afraid of technology that he lets technology dictate his reality. Given my irritation with both of them, I figured I should try to make a stab at what my response to this question would be.

danahs response to said proposition

In their current incarnation, social network sites (SNSs) like Facebook and MySpace should not be integrated directly into the classroom. That said, they provide youth with a valuable networked public space to gather with their peers. Depending on the role of school in their lives, youth leverage these structures for educational purposes asking questions about homework, sharing links and resources, and even in some cases asking their teachers for information outside of the classroom. SNSs do not make youth engage educationally; they allow educationally-motivated youth with a structure to engage educationally. Social network sites do not help most youth see beyond their social walls. Because most youth do not engage in networking, they do not meet new people or see the world from a different perspective. Social network sites reinforce everyday networks, providing a gathering space when none previously existed. Educational pedagogy has swung over the years between focusing on individual-centered learning, group learning, and peer-to-peer learning. If you take a peer-to-peer learning approach, you are inherently valuing the social networks that youth have and maintain, or else you are encouraging them to build one. These networks are mediated and reinforced through SNSs. If there is pedagogical value to encouraging peers to have strong social networks, then there is pedagogical value in supporting their sociable practices on SNSs. When it comes to socializing with friends, youth prefer in-person (unregulated) encounters. They turn to SNSs when they cant get together with their friends en masse or when they cant get together without surveilling adults. By and large, there are few free spaces where youth can gather with their friends en masse and, even then, inevitably a chunk of parents refuse to let them, thereby destroying cluster effects. So, of course, they turn to SNSs. School is one of the few times when they can get together with their friends and they use every unscheduled moment to socialize passing time, when the teachers back is turned, lunch, bathroom breaks, etc. They are desperately craving an opportunity to connect with their friends; not surprisingly, their use of anything that enables socialization while at school is deeply desired. This is why they text during classes. They go onto SNSs during the day to write to friends who have different schedules or to write to the whole group if a portion of them are on a different lunch. Given how regulated youth are, any open space where socializing is possible will be taken up by socializing; its often the only place they can see their friends. This isnt something that the schools can fix, but they also shouldnt be surprised when group time turns into gossip time. I have yet to hear a compelling argument for why social network sites (or networking ones) should be used in the classroom. Those tools are primarily about socializing, with media and information sharing there to prop up the socialization process (much status is gained from knowing about the cool new

thing). I havent even heard of a good reason why social network site features should be used in the classroom. What is the value of knowing who is friends with who or creating a profile when you already know all of your classmates? This not to say that technology doesnt belong in the classroom. Information access tools like Wikipedia and Google are tremendously valuable for getting access to content and should be strongly encouraged and taught through the lens of media literacy. Email, IM, or other communication tools can be super useful for distributing content to the group or between individuals or even providing a channel for group discussion (in-class or out). Blogging tools and group sharing tools are also quite valuable. Having to produce for the group instead of the teacher can work as a powerful incentive; most youth dont want to be embarrassed in front of their peers and pressure to perform can be le veraged to the teachers advantage. But why social network sites? To the degree that they support blogging and group sharing, sure but thats not the key point of them at all. They key features that make them unique are: profiles plus visible, articulated and surfable friends lists. I simply dont get why these are of value in the classroom. Im not saying that social network sites have no value. Quite the contrary. But their value is about the kinds of informal social learning that is required for maturation understanding your community, learning the communicate with others, working through status games, building and maintaining friendships, working through personal values, etc. All too often we underestimate these processes because, traditionally, they have happened so naturally. Yet, whats odd about todays youth culture is that weve systematically taken away the opportunities for socialization. And yet we wonder why our kids are so immature compared to kids from other cultures. Social network sites are popular because youth are trying to take back the right to be social, even if it has to happen in interstitial ways. We need to recognize that not all learning is about book learning brains mature through experience, including social experiences. Yes, there are problems with technology and with technology in the classroom. Anyone critical of capitalism has a right to be critical of commercial social network sites and the economic processes that got us here. But dont blame the SNSs they didnt create the obscenities of the market, but they are bound by them. Also, dont forget that the current educational system was structured to meet the needs of the market, to create good consumers and good laborers. It aint pretty, and the privatization of education and educational testing is downright scary, but its a systems problem, not a technology problems. There are innumerable inequalities in terms of educational technology access, just as there are huge inequalities in nearly every aspect of education. How many schools lack pencils, textbooks, teachers?

Again, its terrible, but its not the technologys fault. We all have a responsibility to rethink education and figure out how to equip all classrooms with the tools needed for giving students the best education possible, including teachers and technology. Dont devalue technology simply because there are currently inequalities; no one would go around devaluing teachers using the same logic. Finally, please adult world, I beg you stop fearing and/or fetishizing technology. Neither approach does us any good. Technology is not the devil, nor is it the panacea youve been waiting for. Its a tool. Just like a pencil. Figure out what its good for and leverage that to your advantage. Realize that there are interface problems and figure out how to work around them to meet your goals. Tools do not define pedagogy, but pedagogy can leverage tools. The first step is understanding what the technology is about, when and where it is useful, and how it can and will be manipulated by users for their own desires.