Further, these students are using computers, smart phones and other devices to stay connected and interact. It is more about the continuous connection and convenience of these interactions that seems to be important to them.
To stay connected most students, and many others are using social networks, with the strongest of these being Facebook as seen in Figure 2.
Figure 2. US College Student Internet Users.
Since this is the preferred method of communication and interaction that most students use today, it only makes sense that schools should be integrating social network technology into the classroom. Junco and Cole-Avent (2008) state in their research, “students rarely differentiate real world and online communication. They often discuss how they were talking to a friend when they are referring to an online conversation” (p. 7). The researchers conclude that with the ever-growing list of new technologies and ways to stay connected, it is important for school officials at all levels to begin to understand, use and integrate these technologies into their jobs in order to make the students feel more comfortable and enhance the educational experience (Junco & Cole-Avent).
Other studies show that you can engage new students by simply setting up a group page to welcome them and allow them to connect and get to know each other. This is a simple way for students to meet and begin to build a sense of community with the school with little cost or effort on the side of the school. This same study shows that students interacting with each other for just a few hours a day also increases both positive feelings about the school and student engagement in all aspects of academic life as demonstrated in Figure 3 (Heibeger & Harper, 2008).
Figure 3. The relationship between the use of social networking sites and campus engagement.
Schools have long understood that students have many different interests and talents. That is why schools offer a variety of programs like sports, dance, art, and other forms of expression beyond the standard educational rigors. The same must be true when engaging students and enhancing communication. Schools can no longer afford to assume that standard mail or phone calls will be sufficient. “To support and communicate well with students, student affairs staff must embrace and explore new technologies. Facebook is one vehicle for achieving the goal of maximizing this communication” (Heibeger & Harper, 2008, p. 32).
A continuing trend in education is for schools to be teaching traits of character. Many educators are beginning to feel that this responsibility must be carried into the digital world where our students are spending so much time. A third grade teacher from California has been teaching her students Internet safety and caution in accepting friends. It is her belief that she is teaching etiquette (O'Hanlon, 2007). Other teachers trying social networking tools are finding new and unique ways to teach using blogs, chat forums and other online tools (O'Hanlon). In using these tools teacher are finding increased test scores as well. One teacher found that students are scoring higher on writing tests because they have practiced and enjoyed writing more by using blogs, threaded discussions and online posts. Not only are the students writing more and enjoying it, but they are assessing and giving peer feedback about the writing as well. This is pushing the students to be even more creative and correct in their writing (O'Hanlon).
As schools prepare students for continuing their education or for the workplace, one type of communication and work experience is being taught more often; the collaborative project. With these projects comes the need for students to communicate outside of the class. Tools such as email are often unreliable as students claim that they were not received or lost. Phone calls are equally unreliable due to reception or being unable to reach the other party due to previous commitments. The obvious and easiest solution is creating a Segregated Social Network (SSN) by using social networking tools like Ning or a group page on Facebook. In using such networks, students, teachers and researchers have found that communication does not get lost, communication is more flexible, is better for peer-to-peer information exchanges, and allows for a certain amount of personal expression without the loss of effectiveness in working with the team issues (Boostrom, Raghu, & Summey, 2009). After a term-long project using a SSN, the students were surveyed by the researchers to get their opinion on how well the use of the SSN worked as compared to other technologies or the traditional approach. The researchers found that the teams reported they preferred the use of a social network for collaborative work and that communication was more effective than using other technologies as results show in Figure 4 (Boostrom, Raghu, & Summey).
Figure 4. Descriptive statistics and t-test results for the adaptability of the network for peer-to-peer communication (Boostrom, Raghu, & Summey, 2009).
As stated earlier, this group found that the SSN created a way to consider high-order goals by the educators. With the technologically enhanced communication, students were more easily able to manage the flow of all information about the project and were then able to focus more on the workload rather than on who was supposed to be doing what on the project. More importantly, the students reported that the project using the SSN, was more enjoyable as compared to similar projects using traditional methods of education (Boostrom, Raghu, & Summey, 2009).
One of the other big issues in education has been the teaching of English language learners (ELLs). These students are coming into classes and are being asked to learn the language and be proficient in writing and speaking at a very fast pace. One way that schools are beginning to deal with this issue is to use Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) over social networks. In using this technology researchers found that teachers and students were able to more quickly and easily negotiate meaning while doing the assignments. Further, teachers felt more confident in teaching the material using the CMC. The students were able to recognize and learn unknown words, phrases and other vocabulary and later reproduce them. The researchers found that this technology works better when it is fully integrated into the program and is not just tacked on or used as an additional task (Sahin, 2009).
This information makes it clear that students, since they are already comfortable operating in the digital world, prefer using today’s collaborative and communicative tools in the classroom. It also shows that when integrated into programs, there is more enjoyment of study and test score results increase.
Benefit to Educators and ParentsWhile benefits to students are clear, it is important to consider the potential benefits of using social networking for enhanced communication and engagement by the educators and parents of students. Hansford and Adlington (2008) argue that students today receive their information in multiple ways. Even standard books that these student read out of class are turned quickly into movies, are made into games, and have large amounts of internet content as well. They have grown up with the Internet and other technology and are able to use these tools in other situations and create new experiences for themselves (Hansford & Adlington). When educators continue to use the traditional delivery methods of education and leave out the more modern forms of technology that students are using, enjoy and understand, the educators are creating a dissonance, learning gaps or just displeasure for the students. The researchers suggest that integrating these new technologies is not just something that should be considered, but rather a pedagogical necessity that needs to be incorporated now. Further, they suggest the implementation of wikis, blogs and other social networking tools (Hansford & Adlington). By adapting these tools into the daily lessons in the classroom educators can find that students are more engaged, have greater understanding and are able to produce fuller, more elaborate texts than in the traditional methods.
While the need for engaging students in the class is obvious toward the student’s success, so is engaging the parents. As mentioned previously, when parents, family and caretakers are involved with the student’s learning process the results are better test scores, attendance rates, improved social skills and behavior, and a greater chance of going to college (Bessell, Sinagub, Lee, & Schumm, 2009). Researchers found that by using social networking tools to increase parental engagement and overcome problems in working with their children to be very successful. In the test program, they found that “the quality of parental involvement significantly improved and that percentage of parents involved more than doubled” (Bessell, Sinagub, Lee, & Schumm, para. 4). They also found that in homes where the parents do not speak English or are not proficient in English, they were still able to help their children using technology and social network tools. Beyond that, it made parents confident enough to use these same technologies and social networking tools to engage in more frequent communication with teachers and staff to keep up with class work, student activities and student achievement (Bessell, Sinagub, Lee, & Schumm).
The use of email and social networks like the Instant Messaging (IM) feature in Facebook for parent-teacher communication is an area of great interest to researchers. The first thing that the researchers looked at was the topic of discussion of teachers and parents. These results were hardly surprising with grades being at the top, scheduling issues next and health issues third as seen in Figure 5 (Thompson, 2008). The emails were found to be more than just basic communication. They gave clues to both the teacher and the parent as to how the student participates, when the problem is emerging and what may trigger it. In other words, the emails help track a pattern in behavior and other issues that help lead to solutions.
In looking at the frequency of communication with parents these researchers found that although the amount of time that teachers use to communicate with parents, the frequency of communication was greater if the parent and teacher were communicating using email or IM. This resulted when teachers realized the convenience factor and ease of use using CMC due to such factors like parent’s schedules. Using CMC meant that the teachers were able to send the information on their schedule and the parents were able to respond on theirs without having to have several conversations about setting up times or meetings (Thompson, 2008).
Figure 5. Percentage of email topic frequency (Thompson, 2008, p. 208).
Some of the more surprising elements of the research were in the areas of length and initiation of contact. The length of the contact was typically short and to the point in order to give the necessary information and then move to the next subject. Emails were longer when addressing emotional issues that required greater explanation. It was also found that parents initiated CMC more often than teachers. This is often due to parents being able to get a teachers email address more easily and parents used email or IM at their convenience. Teachers often tried to communicate using traditional methods first (Thompson, 2008). The final outcome of the research was that using CMC communication was seen as a positive experience by both parents and teachers. The more frequent communication resulted in better grades as students turned in missing work that was reported in the CMC. If the communication was about behavior, that also improved in class and often resulted in other students in the class being better behaved as well. This was often due to sending a message at the point the behavior was occurring and being able to establish a pattern or trigger for the behavior (Thompson). Since CMC is already accepted by students, parents and teachers, moving to the next level using social networking more often seems like a logical step.
Besides enhanced communication with parents, there is also a positive correlation of teachers using CMC with students. Li and Pitts (2009) studied teachers who use virtual office hours using Facebook IM as an alternative method of contact. Since students of today use technology for communication, are comfortable with technology and see virtual and face-to-face communication as seamless, the results of the study were not surprising. If a student had a course related question, the preference of the student was to send an email or take an informal hallway meeting rather than set an appointment during office hours and if virtual hours were offered, students did not take advantage of them anymore than traditional hours. It is more the perception of the educator that changed in the minds of the students. The offering of virtual hours increased student satisfaction with the class compared to those using only traditional in-office meetings. These findings confirm the concept that informal communication between students and educators is beneficial in creating satisfaction in class content, performance and most importantly, in retaining students in the long-term. In other words, students will be more willing to try and persist in their studies if they feel a connection to their educators (Li & Pitts).
Resistance to integrate Social Networks
Despite the increased level of engagement by faculty and parents and the increased performance by students when social networking is integrated into daily use at schools, many institutions are reluctant to add social networking into any level of its communication or educational structure. One of the greatest causes of reluctance of educators to adapt to new technology is the insistence that what worked in the past should still work today. Mary Mallery (2008) recently pointed out a common opinion on social network technology, “what the Internet hypes as connectivity is, in fact, the opposite. If schools are seeking to build communities, perhaps the perfect tool is not a mouse but a room where people can come together and share ideas” (p. 24). This idea misses the point that today’s students have grown up with technology and use it in nearly every aspect of their lives. If schools do not adapt, students will continue to feel a disconnect and disillusionment with education.
In addition, there are general fears about learning new technologies. Those that have not grown up with technology and do not use it as often as students do, tend to feel awkward or incompetent using social networking and other internet tools, therefore, they tend to avoid them. As Reid Goldsborough (2003) points out in his article, anyone using a new technology or software is dealing with fear on some level and only time, practice and comfort with the tool will decrease this fear. Further, he points out that it is important for a person to know that they do not need to know absolutely everything about a program or Internet tool before using it. It is more important that learners understand how the program thinks so that they become willing to train themselves (Goldsborough).
Another area of concern that is causing the adaptation of social networking to slow is the experience and perceptions of educators about educational technology and social networks. As John Steel and Allison Hudson (2001) point out, these can be broken into several areas the first of which is experience. Many educators are seeing that students are using social networks and various Internet technologies daily and are very skilled and comfortable with their use. These educators feel that they are lacking the same skills and experience and are therefore, afraid or apprehensive to use the technology in their classes. Even teachers who are using social technology often in their classes, report that they could be doing more in response to how they see their students using the same technology (Steel & Hudson).
The next area is the perceived value of technology in the classroom. According to the research, most educators saw using technology in the classroom as having great value as a timesavings device, a way to enrich lessons being taught, and also a way for students to engage or find more interest in the lesson (Steel & Hudson, 2001). This shows that educators are still not on the same level as students because they only perceive technology as a way to add to the lesson and not be used as part of the lesson. This is possibly the reason that educators feel they need to do more with technology. This lack of understanding and limited use causes more pressure and concern for educators, which causes a more limited use of the technology.
The final area is roles and relationships with the technology. In the article many educators reported that they could see a change in the way the students reacted and engaged when technology was used in the lesson and many spoke to changing teaching methodologies to a student centered educational approach where the teacher becomes more of a facilitator (Steel & Hudson, 2001). However, these same teachers remarked about the extra time it would take to change over to such a method and their time is already over-burdened and limited.
The group of educators also laid out some straight-forward fears about using technology in the classroom such as technology breakdown. If the teacher has planned a lesson using an Internet tool and the site is down at the time of class, the teacher has no plan and the class becomes chaos. Another concern is that using technology limits the traditional forms of teaching and communication that have proven to be effective. Finally, the teachers felt that when using technology, they were just letting the students loose and were not effectively administering the student’s time, behavior and outcomes (Steel & Hudson, 2001). These fears, while reasonable, do not take into account that the students prefer to learn this way, are comfortable in doing so and do not see the difference between electronic and personal communication.
Another area of concern that keeps schools from adopting social networks is where to draw the line between personal and private communication. From its inception, students have used social networking to post, discuss and share every aspect of their lives. This in itself has caused an intrinsic fear of social networks. There are also countless stories of how people have misused social networking and it has cost them their relationship or job. As Jeffery Young (2009) notes in his article, social networking has more positive benefits than negative ones. It is more a job of managing your settings and establishing personal boundaries (Young). It is where these boundaries lie and how to set them that is causing anxiety with teachers and administrators alike. The obvious answer and result is to avoid questionable sites and not use social networks altogether. The article points out that when email came along many people had difficulty learning it and they also sent private emails to everyone on their contact list. This phenomenon has diminished with time and practice and the author suggests that inappropriate postings on social networks will as well (Young).
Finally, there seems to be another disconnect between students and educators. Sturgeon and Walker (year) state that there is a desire by students to form a relationship and a communication link using social networks, but educators are still keeping students at arms length as they do not put the same emphasis on this link or relationship. This is despite the fact that these same educators realize that the more students know their teachers, the more relaxed they are and the better they perform (Young, 2009).
Another concern to be addressed is that many educators feel that social networking is a place for the young they teach and not for them. There is also a problem, as Sara Lipka (2007) suggests, when teachers allow students to refer to them in an informal manner, eat lunch with them or hang out in public, without concern of being perceived as invading the student’s privacy. However, in the world of social networking, many educators feel that they cannot tell where the line is between professional and personal (Lipka). Educators who send friend requests to students often feel that they will only accept the request out of obligation or need and not out of a real sense of keeping in touch or communicating. Educators also fear that if they give a bad grade to a student, the reaction could be that the student doesn’t understand how a Facebook friend could give them a bad grade (Lipka). The line seems to be that educators should accept but not send friend requests to students and that the information educators glean from social network posts should be used to help in education and not used against the students. Still, many educators feel that avoiding social networking is the safest route.
Current and Past Solutions to Problem
Failures of Current and Past Solutions
When it comes to the decision of adopting the use of social networks into the educational process, academic institutions have come to many different solutions. One of the most popular and dangerous is the complete ban on the use of social networks within the school. At the beginning of 2009, a Wisconsin school board voted to ban the use of Facebook from its schools citing the potential misuse by staff or students. Students, however, were still able to call, email, text and use other collaborative tools like Blackboard to contact teachers. Only the use of social network communication like an IM on Facebook was banned (Barack, 2009). This shows that the school boards do not understand the technology, how it works and why it is important to students and teachers. If they were really concerned about misuse of communication and safety, many of the other lines of communication should have been shut down as well. This policy is completely ineffective in today’s world.
The banning of social network sites does not stop at elementary and secondary education either. A few colleges have also chosen to ban social networks. In his article, Brock (year) points out that the University of New Mexico has installed software that blocks the use of Facebook and other social networking sites for fear of security breaches of the campus network. Brock then points out that most schools have chosen not to deny or restrict access to social networking sites by students with the concept that it is not the schools business to police student online activity or censor their communication (Brock).
Many schools and academic institutions have heard the horror stories of social networks or have been plied with fear to shut down social networking before any incidents occur. The arguments against social networking are usually the same. A recent article lists several reasons why schools should ban social networks and singles out Facebook in particular. The article lists bandwidth usage, time to learn, false sense of security, potential scams, potential viruses, lack of face-to face communication causing a moral disconnect and a lack of media awareness by students to discern potential marketing (Fodeman & Monroe, 2009). Again this article lists potential problems that might happen in a school and are based on fear, not the reality. According to the Facebook statistics page, the site has over 350 million users, of which at least half use the site daily (Facebook, 2009). With that number of people using the site daily, a few are going to cross the line and abuse the site or use it recklessly. However, the other side must be considered as well, that the vast majority is using the site responsibly. Thus, a total ban and shut down of social network sites based on fear alone is highly unjustified.
Academic institutions have also decided that if they are to allow social networks then it is their responsibility to actively police them and hold the students and staff responsible for any and all content posted. Many schools, like the University of Kentucky and Georgia College, are choosing to put resources to scanning Facebook pages on a daily basis for violations of rules and policies. The school’s claim that it is doing so for campus safety and is well within its rights (Brock, 2006). While the schools may be within their rights to actively view these sites, they are missing the bigger picture with the use of social networks and creating a community where students are comfortable and satisfied with their school experience. When schools engage in this type of activity, the students will not feel as comfortable and the possibility of decreasing retention becomes a possibility as students move to schools that are more tolerant and in sync with their communication preferences.
The policy of actively viewing social networks by schools has had negative consequences as well. Many lawsuits have been filed by students and staff that have been disciplined due to posts on a social network site claiming that the school has overstepped its authority and in many cases, has violated free speech. Groups like the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education have been created as a watchdog group against just this type of school behavior and are meeting with some success against the schools (Lipka, 2008).
In response to these types of groups and general student outrage, many schools have chosen to ignore the issue and turn a blind eye. As one school noted, they do not do random sweeps of student dorms and apartments, so why would they do the same on Facebook? As a lawyer notes in the same article, if a school punishes one student but ignores or misses a similar offense of another, the school has opened itself to a lawsuit (Lipka, 2008). However, ignoring bad behavior by students that are breaking rules and violating honor codes is not an effective solution either. As the article states, “such practices run counter to sound educational philosophies and administrators have a responsibility to investigate if they learn of online evidence that a student may have violated the school’s conduct code” (Lipka, para. 5).
One solution that is also being tried by several schools is to create its own internal social network site to be able to more actively monitor and reduce perceived problems. Many schools also see it as a way to collect data, gain information and maintain contact with graduates. However, these schools are finding that they are struggling to attract students to sign up, those that do, do not continuously update and post like they do on Facebook and most will not show their profile online (Hermes, 2008).
These internal sites also cost the school large amounts of money to build, maintain and monitor as compared to Facebook, which is free and already exists. The final point against this method is that “students are training themselves to use Facebook; for schools to retrain them to use another technological tool that almost all of their friends and family can’t use because they don’t go to the school, there is a piece of logic missing there” (Hermes, 2008, p. 18).
Another reason that schools are not interested in adopting social networks into its walls is the fear of technology integration in the past that has not worked, gone wrong, or been costly to adapt. As Mary Mallery (2008) points out, sometimes a phone call is more effective than an email, or the technology you chose doesn’t do exactly what you thought it would or to get the technology to work, large sums of money were needed to upgrade the system (Mallery).
In addition there are the teachers that tried the technology and found it to be too complicated, could not find a use for it in lessons, or found it to be too fraught with peril to continue its use and stopped using the technology or social networking site. One teacher recently has even stopped using blogs in the classroom for fear that one student’s comments could affect his career. Another mentioned that it is just too difficult to find a balance between the technology and the educational use (Kist, 2008). In many ways, this is a legitimate response to the fear that is being propagated by lawyers, administration and those with little knowledge of the technology, but is this what is best for our students?
Positive Aspects of Current and Past Solutions
For academic institutions that have decided to implement social networks on to its campuses, they chose to use many tools and resources to do so effectively and safely. Banning social networks from the school or work environment does not mean that students and staff stop engaging in the use Facebook. Therefore, an effective tool in maintaining a safe and appropriate environment is a set of guidelines or a code of conduct for students and staff. As Ellyssa Kroski states in her article, “A social media policy is a useful way to set some ground rules with regard to online activities. It is also a reminder that the content that they post isn’t private and may ultimately reflect on the organization” (Kroski, 2009, p. 45). This thought is supported by Dr. BJ Fogg of Stanford University, the director of the Persuasive Technology Lab, who says, “Institutions will need to develop social networking policies that outline for students and staff what is appropriate and what is not” (Nealy, 2009, p. 13). In many cases, the code of conduct for behavior crosses all communicational boundaries and extends into the digital world as well. As Sara Lipka points out, “Whatever standard schools adopt, they should be made clear to students. In many cases, schools should worry less about the medium and more about students’ behavior” (Lipka, 2008, p. 1).
Another tool that educators are using to effectively integrate social networks into classes is the limited use policy. In limited, but effective ways, educators are using tools such as pod casts, wikis and blogs for classroom use. The teachers regularly monitor and oversee behavior and use on the project. The reason for this, as Charlene O’Hanlon (2007) points out, is that we ask students to create these projects using technology and then do not allow them to post them for feedback, for others to view or to share their success with friends and family.
Some schools have adopted limited use along with student training to help teach the rules and pitfalls of online communication. Many districts across the nation have instituted traits of character instruction into classes, yet they ban students from using digital communication. When the schools are mandated to teach concepts of fairness, caring, and citizenship but are not allowed to show how those character traits play in the digital world as well, it seems that those districts have completely missed the point of what character education is all about. It is as if they are saying there is one set of rules for the real world and another for the digital world. As Matt Villano (2008) points out in his article, teaching digital citizenship is more than just teaching the hazards of online communication. It is also about learning how to manage your information and your profile to create a safe, fun and creative atmosphere in the digital realm (Villano). Many educators also believe that these traits must begin or also be taught at home. Others believe that there is no way to know if this is being reinforced at home and therefore must be taught aggressively at school. Either way, the idea is to create a new generation of tech savvy students who know how to use social networks responsibly (Villano).
Another approach is training teachers and staff on what appropriate behavior is when working in the digital realm. Majo, Kajs, and Tanguma (2005) did a three-year study concerning teacher training and the use of technology. In their report they found that that if teachers are not confident or comfortable with using the technology, they will not incorporate it into lessons. Further, most teachers reported in the study that they were never taught how to effectively integrate the technology into the lesson and therefore did not feel confident on how to do so. If teachers were given classes, training and support on how to use technology in a lesson easily and effectively they were far more willing to adopt the technology into the lesson (Mayo, Kajs, & Tanguma).
Once teachers are comfortable using the new technology and social networking tools, another useful solution for schools is to use professional development days to reinforce the rules of conduct and ways that social networks can be used in daily classroom activates. On such meeting days, Christine Greenhow (2009) suggests that teachers share such things as social bookmarks that they have collected for lessons, best practices, research, ideas and other contacts. Teachers also need to learn how social networks can be used in class to teach and validate student’s work. For instance, a blog, assignment or video posted to a social networking site gives students feedback on their work and peer validation for what they have created. Many students report that this feedback and recognition motivates them to be more creative on future projects (Greenhow).
Proposed Solution to Problem
As the research and literature have shown, social networking and new communicational technologies are a part of every aspect of modern communication, business and education. To ban social networks from schools is not a feasible solution as educators would not be properly training students for the next step of their lives, whether that step be moving to the workforce or continuing their education. On the other hand, blind acceptance of social networking cannot be allowed either. It is a schools responsibility to investigate behavior that may be unsafe to students and adversely affect an institutions reputation.
Since the problem with adaptation lies within the world of education, the solution must also come from education. As more students, working professionals and educators enter and interact in the digital world, it is the ultimate teaching moment on how to use, cooperate and behave in the online environment of social networking.
The solution must be a multi-pronged educational tool whereby administration, teachers, parents and students are all made aware of what social networking is, how it can benefit all of them and how to operate safely within the digital world. This can be done through meetings, parent nights, in class assignments and professional development days. It can also be done with an online training tool, thereby allowing members of each important group to learn at their own pace and availability of time.
Integration of Proposed Solution
As noted in the review of literature, one of the first things that needs to be assessed before any solution can be introduced is the level of comfort with technology and social networks. Knowing what parents, administrators and teachers feel and understand about social networking will allow those wishing to integrate such networks to know the level of resistance. This can be determined using a web-based survey.
The next step would be to provide the stakeholders in this process (parents, administrators, and teachers) information and evidence about the positive aspects of social networks and how the integrated use of technology can boost test scores, communication, and a student’s enjoyment of learning. This information can be tailored or organized for easy reference and access on a web based system, such as the website proposed at the beginning of the paper.
The next step is to form a professional network of stakeholders to create a social media policy for school employees and students to follow. The policy could be something simple like Ellyssa Kroski (2009) mentions in her paper, which is a simple reminder that the rules in the employee and student manual extend to the digital world as well. She also lists using a disclaimer in your profile that the opinions posted may not be that of the school and other guidelines of online citizenship and respect. The professional network could be facilitated using a threaded discussion board or a private group on Facebook so that members can meet in an asynchronous environment and see the benefits and uses of social networks.
The next step is training for all involved. Teachers could earn professional development credit by the school conducting a seminar or class in online use and safety. This class could also be put in a web-based system so that it could be completed at an educators own pace and time. Parents would also be encouraged to train on the use and safety of the online realm and the use of social networks. These classes could be held in person at the school or over the web in order to teach parents how to use social networks safely. Of course, the training must extend to the students as well. Students must be made to understand what the school’s policy is on social networks and what the other responsibilities and dangers are in the digital world. These can be done in class using social networks for digital citizenship classes and in everyday collaborative projects. Schools that are extremely concerned or have younger students can use sites like Saywire that are completely closed systems where only the students, parents and faculty listed and imported to the sight have access and are able to friend each other. There is also no anonymity, and parental consent is required (Demski, 2009).
The next step would be to begin a small-scale integration of social networking in a few classrooms to assess the results. Data would have to be kept to see if frequency of communication has increased with parents. Assignment and test scores of students who use social networks would also have to be tracked. Finally, staff members would need to evaluate their needs to make sure that they have the ability to implement and use social networking both in the classroom and for enhanced communication.
The final step would be to review the small test group after a period of time and see what worked and what might need to be changed. This could include curriculum, technology and policies. Violations of policy should also be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to ensure due process and see if any changes need to be made to existing policies.
Conclusions
Social networking is currently being demonized in many schools due to its users mistreating their freedoms or due to simple lack of understanding of how it works. These are issues that education and schools can fix. Instead of demonizing new forms of communication and technology, schools should take the opportunity to explore and teach students to use such technology with caution, respect and awareness. As the research shows, this is how today’s students prefer to communicate and learn. Rejecting these tools will make those schools inferior and leave staff members behind in gaining necessary skills to teach in the future and maintain employment. Finally, social networks are a new tool for administrators to use to promote their schools, engage students and retain them over the long-term. With all the positive aspects that social networks can bring to education at little or no additional cost, it is imperative that schools seek solutions to integrate this technology and use it to enhance communication and create exceptional schools.
Suggestions for Further ResearchAn area that would be worth further study and investigation would be a follow up with schools or districts that decided to implement and use social networks. Did the students who used social networking show increased test scores? Did parental involvement and communication increase? What were some of the problems that occurred during integration? Was there additional resistance encountered during the introduction and training phase? Answering these questions would be necessary to make the integration of social networks and the training of those involved more effective. It would also allow schools looking at adding technology or networking the ability to see more clearly the benefits and pitfalls that are, to some degree, theoretical in this paper. Finally, it would show that the policy measures were more effective in creating a safe and creative atmosphere while still maintaining discipline.
References
Barack, L. (2009, February 23). WI schools ban Facebook, IM fraternizing between staff, students. Retrieved December 25, 2009, from
http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6639197.html
Bessell, A., Sinagub, J., Lee, O., & Schumm, J. (2009). Engaging families with technology. T H E Journal, 31(5), 7-13. Retrieved October 3, 2009, from Education Research Complete.
Boostrom, R. E., Raghu, K., & Summey, J. H. (2009). Enhancing class communications through segregated social networks. Marketing Education Review, 19(1), 37-41. Retrieved October 19, 2009, from Education Research Complete.
Brock, R. (2006). Think before you share. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(20), 38-41. Retrieved October 20, 2009, from Education Research Complete.
Demski, J. (2009). Facebook training wheels. T H E Journal, 36(4), 24-28. Retrieved December 9, 2009, from Academic Search Premier.
Fodeman, D., & Monroe, M. (2009). The impact of Facebook on our students. Teacher Librarian, 36(5), 36-40. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from Education Research Complete.
Goldsborough, R. (2003). Taming technology fears. Community College Week, 15(24), 19. Retrieved December 9, 2009, from Education Research Complete.
Greenhow, C. (2009, Jun/Jul). Tapping the wealth of social networks for professional development. Learning and Leading with Technology, 36, 10-11.
Hansford, D., & Adlington, R. (2008). Digital spaces and young people's online authoring: Challenges for teachers. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 32(1), 55-68. Retrieved October 22, 2009, from Education Research Complete.
Heibeger, G., & Harper, R. (2008). Have you facebooked Astin lately? Using technology to increase student involvement. New Directions for Student Services, 1(124), 19-35. Retrieved December 21, 2009, from Academic Search Premier.
Hermes, J. J. (2008). Colleges create Facebook style social networks to reach alumni. Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(33), 18. Retrieved December 18, 2009, from Education Research Complete.
Junco, R., & Cole-Avent, G. A. (2008). An introduction to technologies commonly used by college students. New Directions for Student Services, 1(124), 3-17. Retrieved December 24, 2009 from Academic Search Premier.
Kist, W. (2008). I gave up My Space for Lent: New teachers and social networking sites. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52(3), 245-247. Retrieved December 10, 2009, from Education Research Complete.
Kroski, E. (2009). Should your library have a social media policy? School Library Journal, 55(10), 44-46. Retrieved December 9, 2009, from Education Research Complete.
Li, L., & Pitts, J. (2009). Does it really matter? Using virtual office hours to enhance student-faculty interaction. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 175-185. Retrieved July 16, 2009, from Education Research Complete.
Lipka, S. (2007). For professors, friending can be fraught. Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(15), A1. Retrieved December 9, 2009, from Education Research Complete.
Lipka, S. (2008). The digital limits of "in loco parentis." Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(26), A1. Retrieved December 10, 2009, from Education Research Complete.
Mallery, M. (2008). Tales of technology innovation gone wrong. Computers in Libraries, 28(4), 22-25. Retrieved December 9, 2009, from Education Research Complete.
Mayo, N., Kajs, L., & Tanguma, J. (2005). Longitudinal study of technology training to prepare future teachers. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(1), 3-15. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from Education Research Complete.
McQuail, D. (2005). McQuail's mass communication theory (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Retrieved December 21, 2009, from http://books.google.com/books?id=GZNk7LQK_RwC&dq=Mcquail's+Mass+Communication+Theory.&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=apBhwZEU9U&sig=z5xD8imn_NZuSkZrIKBW_MwxRcI&hl=en&ei=qpgyS8myKY_asgPL5oTABA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCUQ6AEwBQ#v=one
Nealy, M. (2009). The new rules of engagement. Diverse: issues in Higher Education, 26(3), 13. Retrieved December 9, 2009, from Education Research Complete.
O'Hanlon, C. (2007). If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. T H E Journal, 34(8), 39-40. Retrieved December 19, 2009, from Education Research Complete.
Padgett, R. (2006). Best ways to involve parents. Communicator, 30(5), 44-45.
Sahin, M. (2009). Second language vocabulary acquisition in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 1(34), 115-132. Retrieved October 3, 2009, from Education Research Complete.
Steel, J., & Hudson, A. (2001). Educational technology in learning and teaching: The perceptions and experience of teaching staff. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 38(2), 103-111. Retrieved October 21, 2009, from Education Research Complete.
Thompson, B. (2008). Characteristics of parent-teacher e-mail communication. Communication Education, 57(2), 201-223. Retrieved July 16, 2009, from Education Research Complete.
Villano, M. (2008). Text unto others...as you would have them text unto you. T H E Journal, 35(9), 47-51. Retrieved December 9, 2009, from Education Research Complete.
Violino, B. (2009). The buzz on campus. Social networking takes hold. Community College Journal, 79(6), 28-30. Retrieved December 20, 2009, from Education Research Complete.
Young, J. (2009). How not to lose face on Facebook. Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(22), A1. Retrieved October 25, 2009, from Education Research Complete.
