Are Social Sites Good for Educating?

After examining the convergence of MMOs with social networking sites and their game-like similarities, we are faced with the question: Should schools leverage social sites for academic purposes? In a report released this summer, the National School Boards Association indicates that school districts “may want to consider re-examining their policies and practices and explore ways in which they could use social networking for educational purposes.” The discussion continues in an online chat at NSBA’s website with Will Richardson over at the Weblogg-ed blog and Connective Learning entitled, “What are the Educational Benefits of Social Networking for Students and Teachers?”

The report released by the NSBA, “CREATING & CONNECTING//Research and Guidelines on Online Social — and Educational — Networking” came out in July, 2007. The report compiled results from three surveys. The first was online, with 1,277 students aged 9-17. The second involved 1,039 parents and was also online. Finally, 250 school district decision makers were surveyed by phone. Grunwald Associates directed the study while Hypothesis Group managed the field research. Funding for the studies was provided by Microsoft, News Corp., and Verizon.

Researchers looking for statistics of online social networking among children will find a goldmine of info here. The 12 page report is filled with charts and graphs detailing online activities and preferences among young netizens in MySpace and Facebook showing that online activities are approaching parity with television watching among the nation’s youth in total hours devoted to entertainment.

But the recommendations at the end of the report have caused social sites opponents and those against use of the Internet in classrooms to cry foul. In particular, the following recommendations have ruffled the most feathers:

- Consider using social networking for staff communications and professional development.

- Find ways to harness the educational value of social networking.

- Reexamine social networking policies [in schools].

- Encourage social networking companies to increase educational value.

The funding element has led the focus for most of the criticism. In an L.A. Times article, reporters Alex Pham and Alana Semuels note that the Judge Baker Children’s Center in Boston cast aspersions on the report due to its funding by Microsoft (part owner of Facebook), and News Corp. (owner of MySpace).

But because the report was funded in part by companies behind two of the most popular social-networking sites, the school board group should disavow its recommendations, said Susan Linn, director of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood at the Judge Baker Children’s Center, which is affiliated with Harvard Medical School.

“The report reads more like a public relations tool designed to allay educators’ concerns about social networking than a serious investigation of the complex issues raised by introducing new commercialized technology into the classroom,” Linn wrote in a letter to Anne L. Bryant, executive director of the school group.

In response, Bryant indicated the funding entities had nothing to do with conducting and writing the report, and that to ignore the educational potential of social networking sites is tantamount to “putting one’s head in the sand.” The reporters conclude by suggesting most of the angst with social networking in schools revolves around online advertising on the sites.

The tug-of-war between those desiring greater access to technology and Web 2.0 tools in the schools versus those who do not, continues. As Miguel Guhlin pointed out last week, it extends down to the tech director level, showing up in various levels of attitudes. As more and more luminaries and national organizations come out in support of the idea, though, will resistance fade or strengthen?

References:
Creating & connecting//Research and guidelines on online social — and educational — networking. (2007, July). National School Boards Association. Alexandria, VA.

Pham, A., & Semuels, A. (2007, November 19). Educators weigh merits of social network sites. Los Angeles Times. [Online.] Retrieved November 24, 2007 from http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-fi-schools
19nov19,1,5428223.story?

Update:

Thanks to the folks at the LifeLongLearning Lab for pointing out the link to the report changed. I’ve updated it.

Raid a Dungeon then Trade Business Cards: Professional Networking Merges with MMOs

Here’s a refreshing Australian news piece slanted toward the positive aspects of gaming. An article running in ABC Southern Queensland offers an interview with Dr. Penny de Byl in the Department of Mathematics and Computing over at the University of Southern Queensland. Here is the most intriguing quote of many:

“There is a field called ’serious games’. Serious games have come from the ‘edutainment’ genre that used to be around. They’re serious games for training military personnel, mathematics applications, emergency wards in hospitals. If you can think of a domain, there will be a serious game out there for it. What they do is they bring the authentic environment to the students…Games inherently teach. Whenever you pick up a game you will learn something new, because you will learn how to control it. People learn better when they’re interacting with things. You can’t help but learn from games. Because kids are so engaged in games, if we can put serious content into them, in the correct way, they’re learning without trying.”

So academically, games are good fodder for research. The article then examines the social aspects of gaming. Now that doctors, lawyers, and other professionals are such ardent gamers, does this leisure activity gain the same social stature as, say, golf? It certainly offers possibilities for higher numbers of contacts while socializing than do many RL activities. “[Y]ou could still play golf, but you can’t play golf with thirty of your mates at the same time,” one interviewee pointed out.

On a related note, the Associated Press ran an article recently on the merging of social networking with online gaming.

Social and gaming networks, once considered polar opposites, are cross-pollenating [sic] as online interactions replace prime-time TV and other, more traditional media experiences. Games like “Kaneva” are attracting players that games like “Super Mario Brothers” never did … Game developers say there’s money for both sides in this convergence.

Kartrider and Kaneva offer opportunities to socialize while playing. Facebook has Scrabulous and MySpace plans a game channel soon. Could we see redefinitions of MMOs and MMORPGs as we know them?

MySpace and Facebook are massively multiplayer games in disguise, says Gabe Zichermann, who is developing “rmbr,” which he says will make a video game out of tagging and sharing digital photos … “They’re going to be able to monetize their users at the same level (as the games do),” Jessica Tams, managing director of the Casual Games Association, said of the social network sites. “That’s a lot of money.”

Christopher Sherman, executive director of Virtual Worlds Management, and Joshua Smyth over at Syracuse also get nice quotes.

So, stay a while, slay a while, and by the way … here’s my card.

References:
Associated Press. (2007, November 22). Online video games meet social networking tools and find they have a lot in common. [Online.] Retrieved November 22, 2007 from: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/23/america/
NA-FEA-A-E-TEC-US-Social-Games-Online.php

Is it OK for adults to play video games? (2007, November 22). ABC Southern Queensland. [Online]. Available: http://www.abc.net.au/southqld/stories/s2098500.htm?backyard

Stay Off the Grass: Bypassing Content Filters for Educational Gaming & Web 2.0

I recall hearing a story (somewhere down the line … probably in a college lecture) about an architect hired to design a cluster of buildings. Once built and ready for sidewalks connecting the entrances, he ordered grass seeded between the buildings and delayed sidewalk construction a while. In a few months the grass grew, and people going in and out of the buildings made their own pathways to the doors. At that point, the architect ordered the sidewalks constructed … following the elegant and efficient pathways created by the people.

I remember that story every time I walk through a college or school campus and see paths through the grass where people follow more efficient routes than the sidewalks. At UNT, despite signs pleading with students to stay off the grass, and rope barriers cutting off students’ favorite route between the two main education buildings, the powers that be finally relented and built a sidewalk for the most popular shortcut.

What a powerful idea it was for the architect to simply wait and let the people … the end users … figure out the best places for the sidewalks to go! Think of the money saved, and the aesthetics involved. What a powerful analogy the story is for educational technology, too. “Sidewalks,” or connections to information and resources, must be built for organizations. But, when the connections are dictated without input from those using the connections, efficiency suffers. And those connecting to resources within an organization (“walking to the doors between buildings”) often find their own ways that are more efficient than is what dictated from above.

This helps explain the ongoing conundrum Web 2.0 tools face in academic environments, including instructional gaming. I was reminded of the sidewalk story while catching up with some blogs recently. In late October, uber-blogger Robert Scoble noted during a discussion with his son’s high school buddies that Facebook and MySpace were blocked at school. This didn’t stop them, of course, and Scoble notes various tips the teens had to get around the filters. Scoble himself simply turns on his Verizon wireless data card and bypasses the filter altogether. Fooey on over-controlling administrators, Scoble says.

What is most interesting to me are the attitudes people have toward school filters. They follow the same patterns some people have in their attitudes toward instructional videogames in schools. Namely, some folks think that using the Web for anything besides serious purposes is a waste of time, and should not be allowed in school. The problem is, they want to dictate where to pave the sidewalks. What is “serious” is what they define as serious; anything else should be banned.

Reading the many comments Scoble received is more interesting than his original post. Some folks just don’t get it. One poster wrote: “I’m sorry, but why should we be encouraging kids to circumvent school policies?” Another suggested time would be better spent with teachers than on Facebook. Scoble pointed out that Ray Ozzie, Walt Mossberg, and Joi Ito are all on Facebook. But, because the school blocks the site, accessing these experts in their respective fields while at school is “inappropriate.” He sums up: “But, no, you keep thinking that Facebook is just for fooling around.” Ouch.

The arguments go downhill from there. They should access these sites on their time, not the teacher’s time. Scoble counters: they’re still blocked during recess, before and after school, and that is his son’s time. Teaching your son to circumvent policies he disagrees with may lead him to disregard policies on drugs and guns, too. Scoble dismisses this argument: “You think Wikipedia even belongs in the same sentence as guns and drugs. Discussion over.” Some sided with Scoble, stating that learning to circumvent filters is a good life skill to pick up in school.

The issue of filters and their impediment to teaching was brought up earlier in November by Miguel Guhlin. The Web 2.0 product at issue was Google Docs. An administrator on the Texas technology directors’ listserv noted that Google Docs was used by both teachers and students in their district, but had recently been blocked. Miguel has been railing against folks preventing the adoption of important technologies in school settings for years, and he used this opportunity to again deride those demanding we all stay on the sidewalk.

Finally, a poster on the Serious Games listserv, which is filled with academics and industry professionals, noted, in a tone of bemused frustration, that a game he had worked on for a school was now blocked at the very same school.

-*-

I have written two articles for TechEdge that address techniques students use for bypassing filters. These were aimed at helping educate teachers and administrators who are responsible for preventing students in their care from accessing inappropriate sites, and giving them the sense that filters are far from perfect. In the second article, I noted that educators are often more frustrated by the filters than their students. One teacher confided he used his own laptop and Internet connection to bypass the filter at school, essentially following the route Scoble suggested.

Here are some things I’ve noted in comments over on Miguel’s blog and in my articles:

1. Filters are in schools because Congress says they should be. The Child Internet Protection Act (CIPA) dictates that schools receiving federal funds must block objectionable content. It will literally take an act of Congress to get rid of filtering, so don’t hold your breath. Besides, it is “for the children,” and consequently few would want to vote against it. Never mind if it really is beneficial for children, or in fact detrimental. It has been labeled as “for the children,” ergo est. Folks peeved at filters should aim their frustration at politicians, not school personnel.
2. Most filters used by schools are run by the big filtering companies. When something is blocked, for better or worse, rightly or wrongly, save your ire for those companies, not the hapless school administrators. It is true IT personnel can “open” a site deemed harmful by the filtering company, but doing so will involve discussion with the appropriate administrator or committee.
3. The big filtering companies don’t block sites out of spite. They have automated spiders scouring the net, and looking at sites visited by subscribers. When a site fits the criteria for blocking, its URL is added to a list that is updated daily. There is (usually) no Grinch-like administrator hunting for good sites to block. The process is typically automatic. This leads to one of the primary criticisms against filters, that they are reactionary. It usually takes a real live person to go back and correct mistakes made by the bots.
4. As long as there are filters in schools, there will be ways around the filters. A Canadian reference book published in PDF by Citizenlab.org went up recently. Kids can set up proxy sites on their home computers and bypass the filters, use web-enabled devices, or use a host of other techniques. Barring access to anything online is akin to shouting at the wind. People will get irritated the sidewalk doesn’t go where they want, and will get their feet muddy anyway.
5. Unfortunately, along with sites advocating sax and violins, gambling and other vices, Web 2.0 sites are lumped in with the R rated stuff. The reason: liability. Schools don’t want students to make unregulated posts in public parts of the Web using school equipment.
6. Also unfortunately, “gaming” is lumped in with filtering companies’ “bad” categories, because gaming is seen as a waste of time on computers. This includes serious gaming, academic and educational gaming, and often even Google searches for gaming sites. And that’s too bad. The bots can no more distinguish an academically valuable game useful for the classroom from a flash arcade game that is pure drivel.

So there it is. Stay on the sidewalks. But, if you see a quicker, more efficient route to your destination … just follow the path.