Social Networking Group 2 SU 09

From WikEd

This page has been created for the use of students in EPS 415 during Summer 2009. Please do not edit this page unless you are a member of the appropriate group. Thank you.

With Social Networking (SN), the informal is now being formalized. Educational structure is being re-shaped and re-thought in light of the social networking era. Because of this boom, education is becoming progressively less rigid and more innovative and inclusive. On this page, we are discussing social networking as an intellectual and non-formal phenomenon that not only is changing education (pedagogy, policies, student/teacher boundaries, privacy, learning/teaching) but also should be changing the institutions. Since SN is a altering the way students learn, institutions should be embracing it and altering the way they implement it within the classroom.

Contents 1 Introduction 1.1 Definition of Social Networking and its relationship to Social Networks 1.1.1 Structures of Social Networking Sites 1.2 History Behind SN 1.2.1 Function/Purpose 1.2.2 Popular examples 2 Uses in institutions 2.1 Policies and Social Implications 2.2 Business Implications 2.3 Opportunities in Education 2.4 Issues/Challenges 2.4.1 Impression management 2.4.2 Privacy issues 2.4.3 Student-teacher complications 2.4.4 Failure to engage 2.4.5 Rewiring the brain 3 Globalization 3.1 Mediated publics 3.2 Online/offline “friendships” 3.2.1 Collectivized interests 3.2.2 Personal relations 4 Conclusion 5 References 6 External Links

Introduction

Definition of Social Networking and its relationship to Social Networks

What is Social Networking?

Before we can address the educational implications of Social Networking, we need to ask, "What is Social Networking?" Well, this progressively phenomenal outpouring of interactive communication, conveyance of thoughts, feelings and intellect is referred to as "Social Networking"or SN. More clearly stated, it is the grouping of individuals into specific groups with the expectancy of connecting in thoughts or ideals. Although SN is possible in person, it has been made most popular within the online community. By utilizing threaded conversations, which represents one of the most common modes of interaction in the online world, very specific interaction is achieved. This interaction occurs in web forums, email lists, wikis, newsgroups, blogs, subject-specific and group-specific networking sites. People contribute to these conversations for a variety of reasons: for debate, to express appreciation or affiliation, to build a sense of community, to provide and receive social support, to collect information, and to provide answers to questions. The different interactivity and customization of these networks are the delineating factors that set one social networking site or experience apart from another. Let's take a look...

According to Fred Stutzman from the University of North Carolina, the uniqueness of this myriad of Social Networking sites are structured differently from one to the next and can be categorized into two specific "-centric" types, Ego-centric and Object-centric:

Structures of Social Networking Sites

1. Ego-centric Network Structures: Place the individual as the core of the network experience. All activity within that network is focused on and intended for the users within the group and are specific in the following:

• Are represented by sites like Facebook,MySpace, and LinkedIn
• Have user profiles which are the main focus
• Advertise and market in this environment is more difficult
• These sites may be subject to trends/fads as the dynamics of the community change

2. Object-centric Network Structures: Place a non-ego element as the core of the network experience, i.e. travel interest, birds, etc. and are specific in the following:

• Are represented by sites such as Flickr,Youtube, and del.icio.us
• Have content with a main focus
• Content spam and keyword hijacking can be problematic
• Are sites that are less subject to trends/fads as they are essentially content storage utilities

In addition to being classified as "-Centric" Network Structures, these examples of web-based services vary in customization, depending on the needs or requirements of the users associated with that particular group.

• Examples of Minimally Customized Networks: In the case of the following networks, in comparison to other networks, there is minimal customization involved. This means that following the initial setup of the site, the interaction and contribution of the users is the main substance of the website.

1. Blog: Actually coming from the term "Weblog", is a website that consists of a series of entries arranged in reverse chronological order, often updated on frequently with new information about particular topics and shared common interests of it's users. The information can be written by the site owner, brought from other Web sites or sources, or contributed by the users themselves. It requires minimal maintenance. With a weblog, there is a topic that can be thought of as developing commentary, which each "visitor" to the site is given opportunity to contribute to. A weblog is more developed than a micro-blog and may consist of the recorded ideas of an individual (a sort of diary) or it may be a complex collaboration open to anyone (Rowse, 2005).
2. Micro-blog: (provides brief updates) such as Twitter. In this case, these short messages or [1]micro blogs, are known as "Tweets". These messages are relayed through the Twitter site, Short Message Services (SMS) or or external applications. They are a short, simplistic electronic way to communicate with minimal customization. A micro-blog differs from a blog in the sense that entries could consist of a line or sentence fragment or possible a video clip, just enough to get the thought across to the readers (Molnar.2009).

• Examples of Partially Customized: In the following networks, there is more personal expression exhibited, more frequent updates, and thoughts expressed.

• Friendster: Originating from Sydney, Australia, but founded in California, Friendster is an online "socializing" social network. As with it's American counterparts, it requires setting up a profile, logging in, giving basic information, and personal dialoging with others within the network. On the user's page, they are able to choose topics, add visual and audio media, and make the space "their own". This customization allows new people to browse user profiles and connect to friends, friends of friends and so on, allowing members to expand their network of friends more rapidly. - This process of establishing a network and setting up a partially customized environment for connecting with old "friends" and establishing new "friends" is also indicative of Facebook, MySpace, and LinkedIn. See below for more information on these popular sites.

• Example of Fully Interactive and Customized Network:

• Second Life: Is a virtual world that allows it's users (or Residents) to fully customize their existence "in-world". The residents of Second Life (SL) interact with customized Avatars (Computer-generated-selves). They are given the ability to create and modify their "Avi" to reflect the persona they chose. Clothing, "housing"...and just about everything imaginable is available and customized to the specifications of the user. Interaction with residents in-world is available, in any language and residents can explore, meet others, socialize, participate in individual and group activities, create and trade virtual property and services with one another, or travel throughout their virtual world.

History Behind SN

Aspects of social networking began in dating services such as Match and Classmates. The idea of social networking formally appeared on the internet in the late 1990's with services like FireFLy, Evite, and eGroups/OneList. These sites allowed groups of people to coordinate certain kinds of interaction. (Ezzy, 2006).

According to Ezzy, in 2003, social networking sites became typical with the launch of Friendster. Shortly after, there was a wave of social networking sites. Today, social networks are enormously popular. (p.1).

Function/Purpose

Social networking sites allow you to connect with like-minded individuals or more easily reach prospective and current customers or clients. SNS connect people in a meaningful way and for a meaningful purpose.

Popular examples

Social Networking sites have become widely popular. Facebook is a common household term now. For those of you unsure about these sites, the following is an enjoyable explanation of SNs.

Social Networking in Plain English:

1. MySpace

MySpace is a free-access social networking website with an interactive, user-submitted network of friends, personal profiles, blogs, photos, music, and video. Part of the appeal of MySpace is that it is an open site, meaning that it lets users control the page and post nearly whatever they want to post.

DeWolf and Anderson always had plans to expand their new social network site internationally, but MySpace began locally during 2003 in Southern California and catered to actors, musicians, and artists. When MySpace launched in 2003, local bands and club owners created profiles and quickly became MySpace’s primary marketing tool. Eight months after its initial launch, MySpace experienced the “network effect,” an exponential growth of adding “friends.” (Bosworth, 2005).

2. Facebook

Facebook is a free-access social networking website. Facebook members can join networks based on school affiliation, employers, and geographic regions. Facebook can be used for keeping track of friends both old and new. The ability to search for people based on their high school, college, or place of work makes finding people easier. Facebook is the fastest growing social network in the world.

Originally called thefacebook, Facebook was founded by former-Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg (while at Harvard) who ran it with help from Eduardo Saverin. Within months, Facebook and its core idea spread across the dorm rooms of Harvard. Soon enough, it was extended to Stanford and Yale where, like Harvard, it was widely endorsed. Mark Zuckerberg was then joined by two other Harvard-students to help him grow the site to the next level. Only months later when it was officially a national student network phenomenon, Zuckerberg dropped out of Harvard to pursue his dreams and run Facebook full time. In August 2005, thefacebook was officially called Facebook and the domain facebook.com was purchased for a reported $200,000. As of September 2006, the network was extended beyond educational institutions to anyone with a registered email address. The site remains free to join, and makes a profit through advertising revenue. In 2007, the company announced that the number of registered users had reached 30 million, making it the largest social-networking site with an education focus. In October 2008, Facebook announced that it was to set up its international headquarters in Dublin, Ireland. (Phillips, 2007).

3. LinkedIn

What is LinkedIn?

"LinkedIn is the world’s largest professional network with over 40 million members and growing rapidly. LinkedIn connects you to your trusted contacts and helps you exchange knowledge, ideas, and opportunities with a broader network of professionals."

4. Classroom 2.0

Classroom 2.0 is a no-cost, community-supported network. It is a social network for those interested in Web 2.0 and collaborative technologies in education. If you have not seen it, here is the website, http://www.classroom20.com/.

Hargadon says the following about social networking and education: "The ability to gather like-minded or like-interested educators into social networks is clearly one of the pots of gold waiting for us at the end of this rainbow" (Hargadon, 2008). There are many possibilities for educators who care deeply about their specialty to create and gather in ways that were never really possible when constrained by time and geography. Then there are the benefits for the students. "...I can't wait to see what this does in the classroom, as students also begin to be able to have voice and to collaborate in these same ways. There are great stories coming out of engaged classrooms where the tools of social networking are helping students to be more active contributors in meaningful ways, recording their work, and writing very publicly before their peers." (Hargadon, 2008).

Classroom 2.0 is just one example of social networking used within education. The following website offers a listing of social networks used for educational purposes within educational environments.

http://socialnetworksined.wikispaces.com/

Uses in institutions

Policies and Social Implications

Learning Theories in SNs: Non-formal, Informal, and Formal

Non-formal/ Informal learning within SNs:

Definitions and Background:

The popularity of Social Networking Sites (SNSs) has impacted the ways in which people socially interact, exchange information, and allocate their free-time. These sites have introduced a new way to approach social interactions, knowledge construction, and the dissemination of information. There are differing lines of thought, with some using terms “non-formal learning” and “informal learning” interchangeably, and others identifying these as distinctly different types of learning. For those who feel that they are different forms of learning, non-formal learning is considered to be more of a conscious attempt to learn in a nontraditional way, whereas informal learning appears to be learning that takes place as a byproduct of some sort of "real-world" interaction. To complete the picture, “formal” learning is most often associated with that learning which takes place within the formal context of learning/ training institutions. Non-formal and informal learning are also most often associated with self-directed learning that results from direct experience, whereas formal learning is typically learning that occurs from some sort of study, reading, or theoretical practice.

Non-formal Learning: Selman, Cooke, Selman, and Dampier defined this type of learning as: “….That which comprises all other organized, systemic educational activity which is carried out in society, whether offered by educational institutions or any other agency. It is aimed at facilitating selected types of learning on the part of particular sub-groups of the population” (as cited in Daniel, Morrison, & Schwier, 2008, p. 321). Mark Smith (2009) went on to describe non-formal education as being associated with organizations, such as, community groups (n.p.).

Informal Learning: Daniel, Morrison, and Schwier (2008) defined this type of learning as being: “…Often characterized as unorganized, unsystemic, and regularly unintentional. This type of learning was described … as the lifelong process by which people acquire and accumulate knowledge skills, attitudes and insights gathered from a lifetime of experiences” (p. 321). Smith (2009) discussed how informal education is typically considered to be learning that results from interactions with peers, colleagues, family, and friends (n.p.).

It is important to reiterate that some do not make a distinction between “non-formal” and “informal” education. For those who do, it would appear that the learning taking place through interactions on Social Networks (SNs) can be both non-formal and informal, depending on the context and intent. For the remainder of this section, the "non-traditional" forms of learning embodied in informal/ non-formal learning shall be referred to as "non-formal."

Tenants and Theories within Social Networks and Non-formal Learning:

Social networks embody multiple tenants that promote non-formal learning through online interactions. Some of the key components of most SNs are: spirit of openness, inclusiveness, and flexibility. Conceicao and Jones (2008) state that: “The concept of openness is what provides members with the ability to work together to generate, exchange, edit, revise, and publish their content” (p. 2). These online networks provide an opportunity to interact and exchange information not previously available in other mediums of communication. While many SNSs require membership, the majority of them are free. A relevant concern is the “digital divide” for those who lack access to a computer and/or the Internet, and also for those who do not possess the skills or knowledge to effectively utilize SNSs. This is a very real concern, but one which should not diminish the opportunities provided by SNs. In terms of openness, many believe that SNs are inviting because of the belief that they are inclusive and nonjudgmental. A strong concern in this regard is that this nonjudgmental environment may be the result of some hesitation on the part of members to challenge established ideas or “rock the boat.” Critics fear that SNs have become bastions of self-congratulatory communities who may already share the same belief-set, and are hence pre-disposed to agree on issues. This critique could be pitted in some way or another against most entities. Companies, teacher networks, school administrators, and even formal classrooms could also at times be subject to too much social cohesiveness and not enough dissention. The social aspect of "group think" can at times lend itself to a desire for conformity over conflict. This however does not imply that people generally discredit the knowledge-construction that goes on within these “formal” types of networks, but rather, that it is an aspect of human nature to be conscious of.

A principle theory behind the learning that takes place within SNs is embodied in the concept of “social constructivism.” Chung (2005) states that the Constructivist learning theory: “views knowledge as constructed by people, or groups of people, in a shared context based upon interpretation of experience and knowledge…. Constructivism highlights the social nature of knowledge, which means that meaning is constructed as a result of social interaction” (n.p.). This theory asserts that knowledge is created and propagated based on the collaboration of participating members. Through discussion, debate, and compromise, ideas are refined and information is spread amongst the group. In their work, Conceicao and Jones (2008) state that:

Construction of knowledge is a characteristic that is closely related to the concepts of microcontent and openness. Social networking members utilize collaboration and self- directed learning to construct knowledge…. [T]he ‘wisdom of crowds’ proposal that suggests large collective groups of people are better at solving problems and facilitating creativity and innovation (p. 2).

Social Constructivism is not new, nor specific to SNs. However, because of the scope and nature of the Internet in general, and specifically SNSs, these sites provide a forum that is unlike prior methods of communication. The theory is that through the mass sharing of ideas and information, all members benefit from this collective knowledge construction, and as a result, non-formal learning is taking place. The wisdom behind this theory is also being formalized through incorporation into formal learning environments. For instance, classrooms that collaborate on a wiki are capitalizing on the social constructivist approach. A concern regarding this practice is that misinformation may be propagated and disseminated because a group may be supporting a faulty idea. However, faulty logic and "poor" ideas will always exist in any methodology. Social networks benefit from membership and communication; with an increase in the ideas that are shared, the quality of the constructed knowledge improves. As stated by Daniel, Morrison, and Schwier (2008): “Communication is a catalyst for community, and when communication is vibrant, community can emerge; when communication is absent, community disappears” (p. 322). This is a valid principle that is applicable to any environment where knowledge is being shared and socially constructed.

Another key tenant of SNs is the self-directed nature of the non-formal learning taking place and the prevalence of life-long learning. Scholars, Daniel, Morrison, and Schwier (2008) maintain that this notion of “self-direction” is the principle of “being independent of the structural contexts of education” (p. 321). Social networking is “self-directed” in the sense that participants are able to pick and choose those sites and topics which are of interest to them. There is merit in the fact that formal education forces individuals to learn about subject areas that they may not otherwise gravitate to; this provides individuals with broader exposure. Also, in terms of life-long learning, it is important to consider how personal interests and pursuits outside of formalized educational institutions should contain elements of self-fulfillment and enjoyment. Much of the learning that occurs throughout our adult lives in the social realm embodies learning that occurs during the pursuit of interests. According to Smith (2009) “…Non-formal education is about acknowledging the importance of education, learning and training which takes place outside recognized educational institutions” (n.p.). Life-long learning occurs in many forms, and SNSs provide another valuable resource in the pursuit of knowledge, and a new way to approach the sharing of information.

Benefits: Social Skills

From a theoretical perspective, proponents of these sites proclaim a multitude of social and personal benefits resulting from usage of SNs. Socially speaking, “Benefits and Opportunities” (2007) states that these “…services can provide an accessible and powerful toolkit for highlighting and acting on issues and causes…” (n.p.). The widespread usage and open nature of SNSs lend themselves to being a powerful platform for spreading awareness and serving as a sounding-board for ideas and debates. The embodied non-formal aspects of learning are being formalized through incorporation into learning institutions. For instance, many schools are joining SNSs, such as Facebook, and using this platform to disseminate information on: recruitment, school events, school issues, and broader educational and socio-political topics. These sites serve as a useful way to present information in a concise, up-to-date, and efficient manner.

Nicholas Carr (2008) raises a prominent concern when he presents the idea that SNSs, and the Internet as a whole, may be negatively affecting our ability to digest large amounts of information, as well as our patience to do so (n.p.). To a certain extent, this is valid observation. Today, information is available at a click of a button; as a result, we have progressed into a global society that has come to expect instant delivery and instant gratification. But, do these cultural changes mean that we are getting “dumber” or that we are learning to communicate differently and learning to adopt different literacies in a global society that demands new traits and skills? Like SNs, globalization has impacted the ways in which societies interact, people communicate, and businesses operate. Generations of the past would most likely not have expected to communicate on a daily basis with people located on the other side of the world; and their professions would very likely have required them to learn fixed skills. However, due to a combination of both technological advancement and globalization, professionals today may easily expect to be in meetings with individuals throughout the world, and employers readily expect their employees to be “flexible,” well-rounded, and collaborative multi-taskers. The fluidity of the globalizing world trains us to learn and unlearn at a rapid pace, and to consume different types of information instantly. The “chicken or the egg” debate applies to whether or not our skills changed first or technology brought about the demand for new skills, but regardless of this, it seems appropriate that the tools we employ, both online and elsewhere, meet our daily demands. We are not “dumbing ourselves down;” rather, we are adapting new skills in order to navigate a globalizing world.

As mentioned previously, SNSs are predicated on the ethos of “community;” these sites thrive upon participation and sharing, and through this, the benefit for students is that these sites promote a collaborative spirit and team-working skills. As described in the piece, “Benefits and Opportunities” (2007), “Social networking services can provide young people with opportunities to learn how to function successfully in a community, navigating a public social space and developing social norms and skills as participants in peer groups” (n.p.). These sites give participants an opportunity to present ideas, learn about various topics, and work with individuals around the world. The “digital world” also provides individuals with an opportunity for a certain level of anonymity, which may positively affect comfort levels when it comes to speaking-up and sharing ideas. From a social perspective, interactions in these sites also expose participants to societal and cultural norms. This exposure is useful for socializing us in both a local and a global context. Zhao (2006) articulates that: “A very important task of social construction is socializing young people into effective members of society. An individual is born with a predisposition toward sociality, and the individual becomes a member of society through internalizing the norms and values of society” (p. 468). Zhao (2006) also highlights an interesting argument against the social value of the Internet when he mentions that “Some scholars ... regard all forms of online communication as ‘asocial' in nature because, they maintain, ‘time on the Internet- email or otherwise, is fundamentally time spent alone’” (p. 470). Zhao is articulating the fear that people would neglect in-person interactions and neglect their relationships when first beginning to use the Internet, email, and SNSs. In practice, personally speaking, I have not found this to be the case. Rather, I have found that socializing online has not replaced my desire to interact with close friends in-person, but instead, has served to strengthen relationships, and provide alternate opportunities for interacting, which compliments other forms of social interaction. Also, the use of SNs has allowed me to be able to re-connect and maintain correspondence with old friends and acquaintances that I had not talked to in years. This is very unique to SNSs because not many other forms of socialization offer the opportunity to locate and network at the click of a button. Using these sites has been an inexpensive and efficient way for me to maintain contact with family members and friends who live overseas. These sites also keep me up to date on current topics and events. Social networks have challenged us to rethink the way we define socialization and the way we consider what it means to be truly “alone” or part of a community. Zhao (2006) asks us to consider that: “In a society of physical copresence, the distinction between ‘alone’ and ‘with others’ … becomes less obvious: one can be physically alone, yet in real-time contact with multiple people…. As our lifeworld has changed, so must our theory about it” (p. 471-472). Many of the social skills articulated above are not exclusive to SNSs. However, for those with access and the literacy to take advantage of their access, SNSs provide a valuable resource for acquiring and/or strengthening these social skills. The Internet in general, and SNs specifically, are unique in terms of the way it can bring people together, as well as its efficiency, speed, scope, and access. In this way, the non-formal education taking place is a specific and rare opportunity.

Benefits: Personal Skills

Social networking sites aid individuals in the development of both social and personal skills; which are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but rather, a complimentary relationship. Due to the nature of the interactions on these sites, this environment fosters the development of debating, discussion, compromise, presentation, and networking skills. Social networks provide the opportunity to give voice to ideas in a physically non-confrontational environment. In addition, because the time/space barriers have been bridged by the Internet, the exposure to far reaching networks and a multitude of ideas and information, is available to those who choose to take advantage and have the capacity to do so. Literacy skills have been a popular topic, and SNs provide a valuable resource for strengthening various literacies, such as: oral, written, listening & comprehension, visual, and technological skills. In a study, the National School Board Association (2007) stated: “With words, music, photos, and videos, students are expressing themselves by creating, manipulating and sharing content online” (p. 1). Social networks are presented in various different platforms, such formats may include: wiki, blogging, YouTube, discussion boards, and other spaces to upload pictures and documents, etc…. This does not mean that students will develop skills in all of these areas, or in any of these areas, but, SNs do present a valuable resource should it be capitalized upon. Lastly, as Conceicao and Jones (2008) touched upon, SNs provide individuals, particularly younger students, with an avenue for self-exploration and discovery; they stated:

Another benefit for social networking members is personal growth and development…. One of the developmental tasks of college-age students is to ‘discover who they are and how they relate to others. For many, Facebook has become a tool in that development, allowing them to define a profile, find others with similar interests, and then reassess how well they fit.’ Online identity is not dependent on physical characteristics of race, gender, age, or physical abilities. Social networking activities provide members with a sense of empowerment…. Members are learning how to be and act in the world (p. 4).

These sites provide a broader realm in which students may challenge their existing notions, as well as explore their personal interests and abilities. However, some could argue that the socialization and self-discovery taking place is of a quality not on par with face-to-face interactions. One scholar credited Berger and Luckmann for stating:

Human language is rooted in face-to-face communications. Aside from being accompanied by a rich array of ‘bodily indices,' spoken language possesses ‘an inherent quality of reciprocity’ that distinguishes it from other sign systems. The ability to immediately hear … verbal exchanges enables conversants to ‘synchronize’ the flow of their inner consciousness…. (as cited in Zhao, 2006, p. 461).

There is some merit to the fact that online interactions lack many of the verbal cues readable on a person’s face, or tone inflections detectable in a person’s voice. However, this argument fails to acknowledge that not all individuals are necessarily skilled at reading social cues “in-person,” and also that online interactions have adopted methods to incorporate these social cues, for example, through the use of smiley faces and other emotion icons. Furthermore, Zhao (2006) articulately points out that online interactions do employ synchronous interactions, such as IM, and that humans have historically employed non-synchronous methods of communication, such as letters (p. 462).

In essence, SNSs are one of the newest forms of social interaction, and hence they are subject to great skepticism and fear. At the same time, SNs are also being widely embraced. What globalization and technological innovations have shown us is that the global world is increasingly being brought together on the Internet, and that the time and space that divides us is being compressed by broadband signals and Ethernet connections. The need for human interaction is not disappearing; rather, what globalization is fostering are new methods of interaction, shared online social norms, and new supplemental outlets for sharing information, learning, and strengthening both social and personal skills. There is a relationship between social and personal skills. The development of both is a complimentary process. Furthermore, the development of both sets of skills nurtures a holistic learning experience. Non-formal learning is not the only way students develop these social and personal skills. Rather, non-formal outlets, particularly SNSs, provide alternate opportunities to formalized educational institutions. These opportunities present avenues of self-exploration and expression free from many of the "top-down" confinements typically associated with formal education. In differing ways, formalized education also seeks to develop many of these same social and personal skills. In this spirit, formal and non-formal education should not be viewed as binaries, but rather, as forms of learning that both strive for personal and societal enrichment. Formal education should (and does) incorporate non-traditional methodologies that add value to the learning process, and challenge us to re-think educational approaches.

Formal Learning:

Formal learning has come to be associated with that learning which takes place within formalized learning institutions, embodies traditional pedagogy, and in general, tends to be more top-down oriented. One definition for formal learning, as articulated by Daniel, Morrison, and Schwier (2008), is that it is “…usually characterized by learners in classes being taught by teachers who deliver comprehensive, multi-year curricula, which is institutionally bound to a graduated system of certification” (p. 321).

Formal learning is traditionally modeled so that a teacher is the subject-matter expert and purveyor of information, and the student is the vessel for receiving and retaining this information. Most often, but not always (ex: various forms of distance education) formalized education takes place at a set time in a set physical classroom. Throughout the world, education has been formalized, and for most, compulsory up to a certain age. The curriculum, policies, pedagogy, and schedule have been pre-established by administrators and educators, and formal education is generally considered more fixed and less fluid than non-formal education.

Some of the downsides to this structure, and bureaucratic systems, are that formal education is often seen as overly-traditional, slow to progress, and unresponsive to societal changes. Smith (2009) states: “The conclusion was that formal educational systems had adopted too slowly to the socio-economic changes around them and that they were held back not only by their conservatism, but also by the inertia of societies themselves” (n.p.). However, formalized education has many benefits. The very structure and compulsory nature of formalized education provides individuals with a fixed learning schedule, some universally taught lessons, and an opportunity to learn skills and acquire knowledge that has been intensively reviewed by academic professionals. In continuation of this, unlike in non-formal learning where much of the subject matter is individually chosen by the student based on their interests, formalized education exposes students to a breadth of topics that they may not otherwise have chosen to study, and which can be argued is vital for a “well-rounded” student.

It is important for educators and administrators to strike a balance between what is considered "traditional" and that which is considered "innovative." Formal educational institutions cite valid concerns when it comes to SNSs and their incorporation into schools. In her article, Mitrano (2006), mentions that there is the fear that SNs will expose students to adult-oriented material and to predators (p. 5). While this is a concern shared by many, is it a valid reason to completely deny SN incorporation? In a study conducted by the National School Boards Association (2007), the sentiment was that these fears may likely be over-inflated (p. 5-6). This study by the National School Boards Association (2007) stated:

Students and parents report fewer recent or current problems, such as cyberstalking, cyberbullying, and unwelcome personal encounters, than school fears and policies imply…. Most problems students and parents report are similar to the types of problems typically associated with any other media… encountered in everyday life (p. 5).

As this study mentions, there are potential dangers in any media and in most facets of life. Rather than allow these fears to trump the potential benefits, they should be confronted. If educators fear that students will be exposed to adult material or predators, appropriate steps can be taken based on the grade level. Websites containing certain categories of material can be blocked, and other features of SNSs can be tailored. In addition, students can be educated and cautioned about safeguarding their identity, maintaining a healthy level of privacy, and to be aware of the potential dangers that they may be vulnerable to. Tracy Mitrano (2006) combats these fears quite elegantly when she states: “Criminals will always appropriate technology for their misbegotten purposes. That pattern, as old of civilization itself, is no reason to quash innovation” (p. 28). Furthermore, formalized education risks alienating their audiences by remaining frozen in antiquated technologies and methodologies; some incorporation of innovative approaches and popular societal practices is necessary to remain credible, and to be able to connect with the students. Should every facet of formal education be altered to mirror pop culture? No. But, formal education should not be viewed as an isolated, parallel-universe, failing to acknowledge social shifts within the surrounding world. One scholarly piece by Daniel, Morrison, and Schwier (2008) aptly states: “As non-formal and informal learning opportunities continue to flourish and entice learners, it is important for educators to find ways to incorporate non-formal events and structures, otherwise learning will become further bifurcated into ‘institutional’ and ‘real-life’ camps” (p. 325). Furthermore, the study conducted by the National School Board Association (2007) emphasized the point that communities, and the parents of students, expect learning institutions to take advantage of learning tools and modern technologies, and to prepare and educate students in these literacies (p. 8). Formal education has and continues to formalize the non-formal by incorporating practices found within the “real-world,” as historically exemplified by learning events such as: internship programs and distance education. For those who live in remote parts of the world, and for whom access to formal learning institutions is not an option, "education" has meant learning in non-formal manners through direct experience in their respective field. Does the non-formal nature of their training impart that "learning" is not taking place? I would argue to the contrary, and point out that historically non-formal education has always been employed to fill the gaps left by formal education. Non-formal education provides alternate opportunities and a different way of approaching: learning, traditional thought processes, and traditional pedagogy. In summation, many schools have been making efforts to adopt SN practices through avenues like blogs, wikis, and the creation of school sponsored pages within SNSs. These learning tools have helped to bridge the connection between formal institutions and students, while “formalizing” what has been traditionally viewed as “non-formal” learning outlets.

Business Implications

The business world is often on the cutting-edge in terms of adopting new technologies and trends and shaping these applications for business purposes. Examples range from the use of typewriters, computers, cell phones, email, and instant messaging. For many, the sentiment is that if businesses want to remain viable and recruit the brightest young minds, then they will have to remain current and engaging to younger generations. This means being able to connect and communicate “on level” with younger employees. Corporate attitudes towards SNSs appear to be a love/hate relationship for many companies. Social networking is seen as both a drain on company time and a useful communication tool. These platforms are not necessarily appropriate for all businesses or in all formats. However, ignoring the rising influence of these sites, and the potential benefits, threatens to limit a company’s potential. Skeptics feel that the importance and benefits of these sites are being over-inflated and unsubstantiated. An article by Karen Klein (2008) states: “Social networking online seems to be exploding…. When I ask how these sites can help my business, the answers can be vague” (n.p.). However, as many before have articulated, the manner in which these platforms can aid a business is not universal for all companies or all types of businesses. Thus, a certain level of ambiguity is warranted. In addition, as an analyst for Forrester Research articulated, the business benefits of SNSs are mainly “soft,” hence it is difficult to “build a case” for them (as cited in Gedda, 2009, n.p.). Rather, if a business is going to employ online SN tools, than it needs to research the potential functions and benefits, and then create a customized strategy. A business article written by Scott Karp (2008) supports this premise, he discussed how general SN platforms, like Ning and Facebook, were too generic to be useful for most businesses, and he states: “I think your going to see more networking sites go vertical, but they will be customized in large and small ways to the type of collaboration they are intended to facilitate” (n.p.).

Some of the general benefits that are associated with corporate use of SNs include: promoting teamwork and collaboration, effective problem-solving outlets, efficiency and cost effectiveness (most sites are free and less money is needed for formal training initiatives), and a means to remain current on both external and internal information. An article written by Jon Swartz (2008) proclaims that SNSs not only improve corporate productivity and communication, but that, in light of the current economy, they provide a valuable way for distant employees to connect when corporate budgets are cutting back on travel expenses (n.p.). This article further claims that roughly 85% of employees work on projects with colleagues who are located at other offices (Swartz, 2008, n.p.). Neo-liberal trends in globalization, along with technological advances, have workers situated around the world doing business at the click of a button. Being able to do business with individuals around the world is going to continue, not diminish, and having the access and the literacy to connect, collaborate, and disseminate information as quickly and as efficiently as possible will give corporations a competitive edge. A piece written by Dan Cannon (2009) discusses how many SNSs offer business pages allowing corporations to: disseminate advertisements and information for free, provide businesses with the opportunity to appear more “friendly” and open to the public, and allow the corporate world to build and maintain networks for free; and, Cannon recommends using existing platforms and bandwidth, like YouTube, for uploading pre-existing company videos (n.p.). Another advantage discussed by Klein (2008), is that the more SNSs a company is a part of, the more avenues it has to connect with prospective customers and colleagues, and the more “searchable” it becomes (n.p.).

Concerns regarding SNSs as they pertain to the business world include loss of productivity if employees are spending work time surfing the net, security breaches if sensitive material is leaked, and image/reputation concerns regarding how employees portray themselves and how this could reflect on the company to potential clients/ customers. A study conducted by Deloitte LLP (2009) claims that 60% of employers feel they have a right to know how their employees are representing themselves, yet only 17% of executives have measures in place to monitor social networking (n.p.). A popular topic in the media is the caveat warning about how employers use SN presence to judge the merit of both job applicants and existing employees. Furthermore, in a world where the lines between "personal" and "professional" spheres are increasingly blurred, employers are becoming increasingly concerned with the way in which an employee’s personal online behavior can tarnish the reputation of the company, or jeopardize their business relationships and endanger business-sensitive information. The Deloitte LLP (2009) study claims that 49% of employees stated that they would ignore company policies (if any existed) prohibiting or limiting the use of social networking (n.p.). To meet corporate concerns while acknowledging the reality of employee proclivity to these types of sites, the Deloitte LLP (2009) article recommends that companies should not create strict policies, but instead, educate and train employees on the dangers of these sites and provide training that fosters good decision-making (n.p.). Deloitte itself is a prime example of a company that has embraced the SN era by creating and customizing an internal Facebook-like platform called “D Street” (only available to Deloitte employees). Other examples are apparent in companies that maintain an internal wiki for staff reference.

The incorporation of SN platforms into the corporate environment is another way in which the non-formal world is becoming formalized. Companies are utilizing these SN features to communicate internally and externally and to remain competitive. In addition, SN is being employed by the business world as a cost-effective alternative to formalized training and learning seminars. Employees are being called-upon to collaborate with and educate each other. It is often stated in studies, articles, and by HR professionals that one of the main skills employers seek in prospective employees is the ability to be flexible and cooperative in an ever changing environment. The article, “Informal Learning Becomes Formal” (2009) states: “Where ‘e-learning’ was the big craze in corporate training in the early 2000’s, and ‘blended-learning’ was the craze in 2003 and 2004, today, thanks to the slowing economy and the widespread availability of social networking and online wikis and portals, ‘informal learning’ is the next big thing” (n.p.). This same article further expresses that 80% of the learning taking place in corporations occurs via on-the-job interactions, and that utilizing employees to non-formally educate each other saves businesses money on internal content development and external trainings (“Informal Learning Becomes Formal,” 2009, n.p.). Lastly, this piece details a three-step process for utilizing SNs and formalizing this avenue of non-formal learning, by: 1) redefining “your role;” 2) selecting an appropriate “technology platform;” and 3) “create context, promote, market, and monitor success” (“Informal Learning Becomes Formal,” 2009, n.p.). Social networking is more than a mere trend, and businesses around the globalizing world are going to have to negotiate if and how to use these features.

Opportunities in Education

Research done by Futurelab shows that within education, there is an increasing change in the view of what education is for. There is now a “growing emphasis on the need to support young people not only to acquire knowledge and information, but to develop the resources and skills necessary to engage with social and technical change, and to continue learning throughout the rest of their lives” (Facer, Grant, Owen, & Sayers, 2006). Now, more than ever, students are more interested in technologies that promote interaction with peers and collaboration with others. Social networking softwares are being created and used in schools for this very reason.

Social networking has become an important part of youth culture and embedded in our society as a primary way for people to connect and communicate with one another. A new study from Grunwald Associates LLC conducted in cooperation with the National School Boards Association shows that the use of social networking software rivals that of television for the attention of tweens and teens in today’s society. The study showed that “96 percent of students surveyed with access to the internet reported that they have ever used any social networking technologies for things such as chatting, text messaging, blogging and visiting online communities, such as Facebook, MySpace and services designed specifically for younger children, such as Webkins and the chat sections of Nick.com” (National School Boards Association, 2007). Most importantly, students said that one of the main topics that their conversations surround while on these sites pertained to education, especially schoolwork.

There is great potential for not only educators but for students to gain formal and non-formal learning benefits, as they become users of social networking software and sites. According to Digizin.org, there are seven primary educational benefits for learners that these sites encourage in young people. Initially, social networks have the ability to assist learners in becoming social participants and active citizens in society by allowing them to “act on societal issues of personal importance through the organization of activities, events, and groups of people surrounding such topics”. This can be seen in conversations held on issue related discussion boards, blogs, or even event invites on Facebook. Connecting youth to others that agree and even disagree with their morals, beliefs, and values creates an arena of dialogue so that learners can be exposed and open to diversity of thought. In danah boyd’s essay "Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life” she concludes “by interacting with unfamiliar others, teenagers are socialized into society” (boyd, 2007), which is making many users of these sites not only friends online, but off. Therefore, these sites help them develop a “voice and build trust in others by allowing the learner to understand how to present oneself during discussions while forming and maintaining online relationships”. Social networks allow them to think through their thoughts more thoroughly before providing answers that will not only express their opinions, but also help them to relate with others. Students also have the ability to become content creators, managers, and distributors of their own thoughts and ideas by being active participants as they upload, modify, and create content. Through the press of a button, a student’s original work can be shared with and critiqued by the world. Additionally, learners get the opportunity to collaborate and become a team player. (This concept will be further explained below.) As they work with others, students get to develop into “explorers and learners while discovering the many services provided by individual social networking sites”. Although there is a great deal of interaction with others, using social networks also help them to become independent and build resilience. There are so many spaces for students to explore independently forcing them to assess risky situations and learn by trial and error how to make appropriate choices while online. Lastly, students develop key real world skills that are “facilitated by their quick adaptation to the services, environment, and technologies” (Benefits and Opportunities: Benefits to Learners, 2007).

Community Building

Using social networking software and sites is not a passive activity, but one that requires active participation in the online space. Users must show creativity, written communication proficiency, design capabilities, and various other skills. It is for those reasons that we are seeing an emergence of Social Networking Sites being used in lower and higher education because of the potential educational benefits it provides. Introducing social networking software to students can have many positive educational outcomes by helping to facilitate learning in schools and libraries. Within these online spaces, learners are able to form communities that allow them to educate and be educated by their peers, faculty, administrators, guardians, and other adults. Through the building of these learning communities, students are able to collaborate in meaningful ways that help them to improve their literacy and writing skills as the use of them requires a great amount of reading and writing.

With a great majority of students having access to these online communities, educators are also using Social Networking Sites to communicate and collaborate with other educators. Prior to this, discussion between faculty and staff of various schools and districts only occurred during in person encounters. Now educators can discuss lesson plans, educational policy, classroom management, and other topics that impact their professional career through blogs, wikis, and forums. The power of these Web 2.0 technologies allows educators to expand greatly their professional networks by connecting with teachers across the United States and around the world. In a 2008 Public Broadcasting Service press release, “social networking in education opens doors to an unprecedented array of learning opportunities in an environment where educators often feel freer to express themselves, share their ideas and be catalysts for change” (Public Broadcasting Service, 2008).

Self Directed learning

Social networking sites not only allow students and school faculty, staff, and administrators to forge personal, professional, and education based connections, but encourage self-directed learning. According to Leila Weir from Edutopia.com, “when students are motivated to create work that they share online, it ignites an independent learning cycle driven by their ideas and energized by responses from peers” (Weir, 2009).

E-Portfolios

The creation of portfolios is not a novel idea and has long been used by professionals such as artists and educators to display collections of their personal work compiled over time. Not only are we seeing a change in the face of education and manner in which educators interact with students as modern technology becomes more digitalized, but also the way in which they compile and show their work has become revolutionized. An ePortfolio is an electronic version of a portfolio. EPortfolios can be defined in many different ways, but usually refers to a digital resource that shows the development of skills and continued professional growth that allows various users to access it, including but not limited to potential employers, other learners, guardians, and teachers (Siemans, 2004). “An ePortfolio is a web-based information management system that uses electronic media and services. The learner builds and maintains a digital repository of artifacts, which they can use to demonstrate competence and reflect on their learning” (ePortfolio Portal, 2004).

The nature of the format used to create an ePortfolio, not only allows the individual compiling it to use various types of technology but also the assessors are able to use technology as they evaluate them. They “offer practitioners and peers the opportunity to review, communicate and assess portfolios in an asynchronous manner” (Siemans, 2004). EPortfolios become an alternative to paper-based portfolios of years past and can now be transported, shared, and assessed in a more convenient manner.

Issues/Challenges

K-12 Issues Social Networking is a hot topic in schools. This is particularly true when reviewing connectivity and funding issues. For those schools with high numbers of students living in poverty, E-rate funding is the only way to provide internet access to their students. This federal program which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) can provide huge discounts on the cost for providing internet access. Depending upon their level of poverty these discounts can range from 20-90% of the costs for eligible services. SN's directly affect compliance with the Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA) and the Child Internet Protection Act (CIPA)(Universal Service Administrative Company, 2009). Because most SN’s collect personal information from children without parental consent, schools that allow access to them are violating DOPA and CIPA laws. As a result, providing access to these sites can jeopardize their funding (American Libraries Association, 2007)(G.B., 2006). With finances at the forefront of concerns, schools cannot afford to lose the financial support the E-rate program provides.

Schools and libraries are looking for ways to positively integrate the use of social networks into student learning. The Young Adult library Services Association has partnered with schools to promote responsible student use of SN’s (Young Adult Library Services Association, 2006). Organizations like The Young Adult Library Association (www.ala.org/yalsa) advocate for responsible use of SN’s. They suggest that SN’s, can teach boundaries and expectations, provides access to peers, experts and authors and empower students (Young Adult Library Services Association, 2006). One example a of positive interaction with SN’s would include SchoolTube. “SchoolTube is a controlled online community where students, educators, and industry members collaborate on video production and web publishing. Other sites are being created to help students remain safe while using them. StaySafe.org for Teens www.staysafe.org/teens/default.html provides resources to help teenagers learn how to navigate these sites safely.

It was interesting to note that a member survey was taken by the National Association of School Boards (NASB). The results indicated that one half of the respondents did not have policies to address social networking sites in schools (National Association of School Boards, 2006). Of those who did have policies in place, the goal was simply to block access to these SN websites. As educational leaders they must realize that children will gain access to these sites. This is clearly evidenced by the 21 million school aged children who use these sites (National Association of School Boards, 2006). The goal for educators and educational leaders must move toward teaching students how to navigate these social networking sites responsibly.

Impression management

Social media really is about SN tools, which allow users to manage enormous amounts of connections. SN not only gives users insight into their friends' friends and family’s interests but also gives a deeper and more comprehensive insight into relationships with fellow students, coworkers, and authority figures than ever possible without the tools. In doing so, the social Web has forever changed our identities and is affecting institutions by “fundamentally changing [their] fabric.” In order words, SN is building bigger, longer-lasting, multidimensional connections by helping people “stay in touch with a broader range of people (and perspectives), by making it easier for relationships to form, and by providing a new channel for interaction with classmates” (Salaway, et al., 2008). Allowing a new way of building and deploying systems, SN has changed the way society participates and behaves, shifting from business to people centered. The challenge is configuring how to fluidly fit institutions into SN. Institutions are realizing that SN adds value and helps produce user-generated content but at the cost of globalizing its personal matters. Therefore, institutions must see that the benefits outweigh the consequences. Or at the very least, that the consequences are blending into a big melting pot of “normality” for this ever-shifting society we inhabit.

Context

The problem with SN is digital representation magnifies all aspects of social life and produces users who are readily available, reachable, and readable to all, regardless of the context. Despite awkwardness, grandparents, coworkers, teachers, and bosses are all able to cross previous social boundaries and read and speculate on digital users. Unfortunately, it is challenging to interpret context in mediated space, especially when cultural beliefs and activities are often subtly ingrained and integrated into online communication and behaviors. The majority of SNS users write with a particular (small scale) audience in mind, but just one incident with proper timing can turn things global. “The Internet lacks walls. Conversations spread and contexts collapse" (boyd, 2007, May). Lacking context within which to place a conversation, a relative, friend, classmate, teacher, boss, or causal viewer can easily misinterpret postings. It’s unclear who is listening and who is not when it comes to the online community. As boyd & Donath (2004) point out, users are comfortable with “public displays of connection.” They show others a user is real and allows others to feel more comfortable exposing themselves in a similar manner. The problem that institutions face is controlling or better stated ‘guiding’ the content of the posts. With this in mind, regardless of intent, the institution itself must set the SN cultural context so the users know how to behave and engage suitably. Users are familiar with displaying and posting comments (it is natural SN behavior), so, for institutions embracing SN, the challenge is to set and maintain the cultural environment. In this regard, institutions will need to recognize “false” or flamboyant information not as a matter of deceptions but rather as a matter of discretion. For example, a conversation with one’s colleagues would normally differ from a conversation with one’s children. The same variance occurs with different locations, for example an opera house mandates different behaviors than a bar house. All of this “flare” can be contained and somewhat avoided just by setting a contextual barrier. So instead of users figuring out how to behave in front of a potential, unknown audience of all people across all space and time, an institution can help control the conversation flare by implementing a contextual boundary. In doing so, the cultural cues will also provide meaningful contextual information to visitors or new members. Context allows people to understand how to behave and what to expect from others’ behaviors since the users do not have the convenience of watching each other for body language and spatial and contextual cues. Having a sense of one’s audience allows the users to make assumptions and take shortcuts in discussing matters, thus allowing institutions more control over its user’s self-presentation.

Before expressing disapproval on found information, authorities and institutions must understand the implications while considering the context and, especially since society at large has become the paparazzi, learn to be forgiving. Many authorities will often check a user’s profiles but, of course, as an outsider not understanding much of the context and the “exaggeration” that occurs within, especially for the younger youth. Some users are known to alter conversations over important personal matters and publicly display them (boyd, 2007, May). With such ease of doctoring conversations, gossip and falsity can easily spread like wildfire in SN. Rumors, slander, and lies all spread as quickly and easily as personal updates, events, and group activities do. Some things to consider: when groups gather, the behavior of the crowd is always different than the behavior of the individuals; that “there are no truths only conversation;” (boyd & Donath, 2004) and that personal profiles can never truly be authenticated (boyd & Ellison, 2007). Also, authorities need to realize the candidness of internet-found information and that immature behaviors and mistakes often shape individuals into more well-round intelligent beings compared to persons with no prior history. Referring to an incident where a potential employee’s job is in jeopardy because of previous online history, boyd emphasizes: “If [the company] doesn't want to hire these people, it'll miss out on the best minds of my generation” (boyd, 2007, June). Ultimately, the challenge is to preserve both online and offline connections with their users. Therefore, an institution may need to first introduce SN as a supplemental tool while maintaining connections with both the virtual and real-life user.

But even at the risk of being misunderstood, SN allows users, like students and employees, to feel comfortable with writing and expressing their views and opinions all while gaining feedback. By using blogs users learn to write more professionally and write with more substance. Users can also use these sites to receive feedback from one another and from those whom they will probably never meet face-to-face. By tying their blogs to SNS profiles, the users’ work become instantly viewable and open to critique by friends, colleagues, and present/future employers. So with a wider audience and a bigger friend collection, SN may help users articulate themselves more precisely. There are many reasons why institutions and their members should be encouraged to participate and encourage in social networking, not just for academic and professional connections/growth, but for social growth too. Evidence shows exploring different identities and expressing new forms of “self” can be healthy and normal for one’s psyche. Overall, SNSs can be a significant tool in assisting users as they learn these kinds of deciphering people skills (what is real/not real, naivety) which will be increasingly important for them as they develop into successful citizens, community members, and professionals.

Privacy issues

As SN is introducing new types of social organization, it’s also rebuilding the way people navigate sociality. Enabling “lightweight social surveillance” (Salaway, et al., 2008), SN is creating a surveillanced society where everyone is essentially a celebrity. A recent article revealed a university president was scolded for inappropriate photos captured by a student at a party and then placed onto a SNS, an example showing basically no one is safe from these mediated spaces. Authority figures must be just as equally cautious of their social activities as all others because somebody just might have a camera and a SNS profile. But the problem is that many users do not fully realize the consequences of their visibility and will even disregard any privacy measures in hopes of finding more friends (boyd, 2007, May). Unfortunately to some, collecting friends has become a game to see who can gain the most. As an article in USA Today, Meet my 5,000 new best pals highlights, adding friends not only serves as a form of politeness but also makes a user look popular while gaining an audience at the same time. Having readily available information and updates on potential victims, predators can use SNSs to stalk and maintain their harassment. Some users have even had uninvited strangers show up at their door step (Cain, 2008). In addition to physical harm, SNSs allow pestering users an invasive route to mentally destroy their victims. With techniques like cyberbullying, flaming, and ostracizing, SNSs easily allow gossip, slander, and any harsh word to invade private spaces and spread like wildfire.

Yet, engaging in these muddled processes, users expose themselves not only to potential predators but also to inquisitive authorities who can easily stunt their future educational and business growth. SNSs are readily accessible by businesses and educational institutions, and there are many documented cases of authorities accessing online profiles which resulted in negative outcomes. Many college students have experienced negative repercussions from questionable activities made public online. Education authorities have surfed SNSs looking for “real” student identities; deans have punished students for inappropriate SNS displays; admission officers have denied accepting students who represent themselves poorly on SNSs; and university employers have fished SNSs for potential employees’ online representation as well as for gaining information not available through background checks. As a result, students have been expelled, suspended, fired, and/or denied university admittance (Cain, 2008). But repercussions extend beyond education alone and land into the business realm as well. In addition to the previously mentioned university president who was scolded for SNS photos, in another incident, a potential employee was reconsidered after the employer discovered some disturbing news that conflicted with their political stance, all from googling her name (boyd, 2007, June). Likewise, a newspaper story revealed a bank intern caught in a lie when he claimed he had an at home emergency for Halloween but was later captured in a photo on a SNS profile that revealed him at a party in a Halloween costume on the exact same dates requested off (Vitak, 2008). Due to the heightened visibility, SN is thus blending the lines for how we determine what is truly private anymore.

In arguing for the sake of privacy, many users proclaim that their online representations in social environments should not be taken out of the original context and used for educational and/or business assessments (Cain, 2008). After all, society is expecting people to act professional in nonprofessional environments. Should there be offline consequences for online profiles? With the rising traffic and popularity of SNSs the answer has to be “yes.” If one chooses to spend a great deal of time hanging out on SNSs, then one must realize (and be conscious) that all of his/her social activities are now in public view. Period. In this regard, why would a potential employer or educational institution not check to see what is visible on its potential future staff/student body. If companies, businesses, and schools are able to view it then others can too, which could easily reflect negatively on any institution associated with that user. Considering these consequences, all SNS users need to be cautious about revealing information.

Yet even though one’s privacy may be at risk, if presented correctly, being accessible online could potentially open doors. A study by Educause revealed how some students’ SNS profiles helped them gain notice and land jobs (Salaway, et al., 2008). To avoid any confusion or negative outcomes due to one’s online representation, social network researcher and analyst, danah boyd (2007, June) suggests that all internet users create a special business online profile/webpage as a resume and continually update it with current, relevant information for the business world. This ongoing digital representation maintenance for the academia/professional market will enhance one’s online persona and serve as a venue for countering any negativity online about oneself. Furthermore as more and more institutions become prevalent in SN, user might be swayed into displaying more appropriate behavior online as well. Instead of educators and authorities fearing SNSs, they should use them to expand and explore their opportunities, while most importantly, modeling appropriate SN etiquette. Since there is substantial education lacking in this area, the instructors can subtly educate their users about “e-professionalism” (appropriate online behaviors and communications), showing users how mediated publics magnify all aspects of social lives. Therefore, all institutions need to be aware and cautious about the ramifications of SNSs and, even if not employing them at their institution, convince its students and employees, especially the young, that their publicly available content is a direct reflection on their current/future professionalism and is potentially harming to others whose photos they are displaying. By setting norms and inquiring users to consider how different actions will be interpreted, educators can build responsible users (Cain, 2008). Effectively redirecting the negative influences of SN privacy will strengthen the online technology role for the users and the institutions.

Student-teacher complications

The social aspect of SNSs could present another challenge to the institution. Even though it is being used for projects, school work, and business doesn’t negate the fact that it is still a “social” network. Therefore, social problems could surface leaving the institutions in a peculiar bind as to if and how to intervene, like when a student or teacher finds something problematic on a user’s profile. Or when "friending" teachers, it is difficult to determine the norms for student-teacher online relationships. Research is definitely lacking in this arena. Unfortunately current data shows that communicating via an SNS with friends is common but communicating with professors is not (Salaway, et al., 2008). With mediated public spaces becoming the norm, “norms concerning student-instructor interactions, campus codes of behavior, and instructional style have evolved in unexpected ways. Teaching and learning practices have evolved as well” (Salaway, et al., 2008). Recent research relays a mixed review on whether teachers should create profiles and interact with students via SNSs. Some claim a better learning environment when a student is exposed to the “real” professor on a profile, while others claim it was not professional enough for a professor. Studies also suggest students might resent a lack in consistency with online and offline teacher professionalism. Even so, trends are subject to change. The real issue and risk for a teacher is the litigious society we live in where anything can be taken out of context, misinterpreted, misshapen, or manipulated into a lawsuit that can ruin a teacher's reputation in a flash.

Given SN’s playful type environments it may be difficult to integrate institution and teacher interactions, especially if a teacher’s public interests change the learning atmosphere for some students. Also, there might be some concern over whether it is appropriate to mandate that students become members of a commercial enterprise that seeks to monetize their attention though adverting revenues. If a teacher makes an assignment mandatory through a SNS, he/she is therefore placing all students “online” to be viewed by the public regardless of their consensus.

Failure to engage

Class Issues

Non-users lack access either because of structural limitations or social factors (Hargittai, 2007). The most prevalent challenge of SN is that one must have access and a machine (a computer) to network, hence “computer-mediated communications.” Therefore, people who do not own a computer and/or cannot get to a connection are essentially excluded from participation. Even those who are able to get to the internet, their online relationship maintenance may lack due to mobilization issues, like lack of a personal laptop. By incorporating SN into not only social life but also institutions, society could potentially be creating an even bigger digital divide. Students interested in a course at school or a job might be excluded based on their social networking capabilities. SN can be very alienating for newcomers. One has to relearn a whole new set of sociotechnical skills to participate. As Hargittai (2007) stated, some simply do not have the technical skills, media literacy, or access to participate. And since “not all access is created equal,” those who have regular, unlimited, unfiltered access would have an edge over users who did not, which generally are the lower income status. Those who regularly encounter barriers to SN are “written out of broader cultural trends” due to lack of ability to engage with those “from more media-rich environments.”

But failure to engage in SN has less to do with technology and more to do with attitude and offline social networks because SN use also correlates with one’s offline social network. Those who have friends who regularly use SNSs do so as well. A key note to remember that Hargittai (2007) points out: “Social network site participation is not about the technology itself but about the peer groups that connect through a particular technology. As a result, it is not only important to join a social network site but to join the right social network site.”

To explore class issues further, one academic wrote a very interesting piece about her observations pertaining to American class division and SN usage. In a paper based on her observations and interviews regarding MySpace and Facebook, danah boyd (2007) presents the argument that American “class” division is based on lifestyle, values, and social networks (n.p.). Boyd (2007) states: “Class divisions in the United States have more to do with social networks (the real ones, not FB/MS), social capital, cultural capital, and attitudes than income” (n.p.). This is a very interesting argument. Class has historically been identifiable based on economic status, yet, this argument contends that American class status is largely self-elected by the individual based upon associations. If we can technically designate our class, rather than be assigned to a class based on prescribed economic status, is this both part of the charm of the American Dream and a sign of egotism? There is something to be applauded about the egalitarianism of being able to identify yourself with the class of your choosing, rather than be limited by economic status. One potential danger to basing classes on non-tangible criteria is that “membership” in a “class” is a moving target that has the potential to be assigned arbitrarily to both include and exclude.

Boyd (2007) observes that the demographic tending to flock to Facebook, are those who are often labeled as “good” kids (those who tend to be “goodies,” academics, jocks, college bound students, and mainly white individuals); whereas, those who congregate to MySpace tend to be the socially ostracized, “artsy” folks, and individuals who are not on the college-bound track (n.p.). These observations are very interesting in light of the facts that Facebook began as a Harvard only SN, later branching out to a college-student only SN, and now being open to the general public; and that MySpace tended to be one of the main SN platforms used by musical groups when it first began. Interestingly, boyd highlights how the aesthetics of these sites embody “class” values. When reflecting on MySpace, boyd stated that Facebook users:

… see it as gaudy, immature, and ‘so middle school’ …They [Facebook users] prefer the ‘clean’ look of Facebook, noting that is more mature… What hegemonic teens call gaudy can also be labeled as ‘glitzy’ or ‘bling’ or ‘fly’ … by subaltern teens (n.p.).

So how does this impact education? Assuming that there is some truth to boyd’s observations regarding SNSs and reputation, the credibility of these two sites (as well as other sites) may garner different reactions from educators and school administrators. For example, if Facebook is seen as a SN frequented by students who are college-bound, educators may be more inclined to promote its usage both informally (by creating personal profiles), and formally (by using it as a platform to communicate events/ topics, and by allowing access to this site in school computer labs). Boyd (2007) observed how the class divide has already impacted the military’s stance on SNs, when it chose to block access to MySpace (frequented mostly by soldiers- “a group that is primarily from poorer, less educated communities”), while allowing access to Facebook (the SNS military officers and other high-ranking officials frequented most) (n.p.). Social networks have been credited with providing valuable tools in terms of socialization, non-formal education, and literacy skills. If some SNSs come to be associated with certain classes and certain education levels, than students who frequent other SNs that may be blocked or discouraged may experience one way in which “class” is unintentionally reinforced by educational institutions through the encouragement/ discouragement of specific SNSs. In summation, “class” divide as it relates to SNSs encompasses issues ranging from access, literacy, and SNS demographics.

Rewiring the brain

Just as our internet landscape is constantly shifting and changing in response to the world around us, the dynamic of ourselves is evolving over time as well. With a shift from verbalized conversations to textualized and unmediated publics to mediated, SN may be rewiring its users’ brains making them more apt to text based digital learning. While some argue that this digitalization shift is also making the users more demanding and selfish - shortening their attention spans and possibly creating personality disorders, others disagree stating SN is an intellectual phenomenon that all institutions must embrace.

Some research claims that when one entertains a new digital technology a mental transformation takes place. Susan Greenfield, a prominent neuroscientist claims that social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter shorten attention span and contribute to an instant gratification, self-centered mindset. She states that SNSs are “infantilizing the brain into the state of small children who are attracted by bussing noises and bright lights, who…live for the moment” (Derbyshire, 2009). Similarly, in an article by Nicholas Carr (2008), he adds that the internet has been affecting his and other collogues’ brains by “remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory” to decrease concentration. With more use, comes less focus. Carr goes on to impose that it isn’t the way one reads that is changing, it’s the way one thinks. Citing a study done at the University College London [2] he claims we are becoming a “power browse” society that primarily only skims and horizontally reads. This, he claims, along with the rise of texting (popular on most SNSs) creates a new kind of thinking, a new kind of self. One which he quotes Tufts University developmental psychologist, Maryanne Wolf, author of :::Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain:::, is putting “’efficiency’ and ‘immediacy’ above all else.” Wolf also mentions that the devices we use to educate, read, etc…play an integral part in shaping our neural connections. Eventually we transform into the information technologies we use most often, which more often than not are instantaneous qualities that stimulate instant gratification. “When the Net absorbs a medium, that medium is re-created in the Net’s image.” Television shows, ads, newspaper articles, etc… are all adapting to quicker, shorter information bits so as to keep its appeal to this new audience. “The last thing these companies want is to encourage leisurely reading or slow, concentrated thought. It’s in their economic interest to drive us to distraction” (Carr, 2008). To add, others claim SN is also causing a lack-of-touch relational society. Lack of touch (and the developmental sensory stimulation it provides for the developing brain) can result in neuro-developmental disorders such as ADD, ADHD, or personality disorders. With friendships maintained online, there are less physical interactions. Instead of learning how to interact directly with human beings, SNS users learn how to interact through these proxies. It is so easy to sever the connection with little consequence because it’s just a machine; the proxy keeps users from considering the human being on the other side of the connection. Real life human interaction makes it much harder to just “ignore” someone whom one doesn’t like or doesn’t agree.

On the other hand, by not having to have physical interactions to communicate SN opens a whole other set of learning and communication possibilities. SN provides the opportunity to bring previously dreaded projects into a fun, engaging atmosphere that the majority of students are already familiar. David Wolman (2008), in an article published in Wired Magazine argues that digital technologies are not threatening society but rather enabling society to prosper by promoting and encouraging collaborative knowledge. Granted, just as some have filled hours watching soap operas, others have equally wasted time SN. But it shouldn’t be avoided because some are abusing or developing into selfish users. It’s not the technology, but rather the person. Education.com posted an article, Online Education: Study Shows Social Networking a Boon for Education, that shows the majority of students age 9-17 spend just as much time online SN as they do watching television. However, 60 percent of their SN included topics such as college planning, learning outside of school, careers, and schoolwork. They also report posting writing and art projects that may have nothing to do with schoolwork. One teacher found that her students engage with each other and the projects themselves when assignments are post on a SNS. She states, “Collaboration, self-direction, and problem solving are all long-term academic and life skills that social networking helps students practice” (Sorentino, 2008). Another article in Wired highlighted the importance SN is playing in education quoting Stan Stanier, who oversees thousands on a university led socially networked site. "The virtual learning environment model used by nearly all universities these days is based on the traditional tutor-led, course-structured mode of learning and doesn't easily allow for significant participation by students or for crossing course boundaries. Higher education is meant to be an environment for student-centered and collaborative learning" (Andrews, 2007).

Society should want its brain to be rewired to stay current with the latest innovations. With the current trend in learning and business conducted online, then SN plays a vital role in learning how to communicate via these avenues. As far as learning and socialization, SNS practices are altering the way students learn; therefore, institutions should be altering the way they teach.

Globalization

As noted above, educational structures are re-shaped and re-thought through social networking so that the systems are becoming less rigid, more innovative and somewhat more inclusive. SN sites have been multiplying and reproducing as they increase in popularity creating a globalizing effect. Whereas, MySpace and Facebook are among the most popular SN sites, others dead and alive have also been globalized. SN sites like Friendster, Orkut, Mixi, LunarStorm, Hyves, Grono, Hi5, Bebo, QQ, and Cyworld have dominated places in the Pacific Islands, Brazil, India, Japan, Sweden, Holland, Poland, Latin American countries, South America, Europe, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, Korea, and China. Within the educational community, SN sites have been developed specifically for student and teacher use. Many of these SN sites are closed allowing students and teachers to collaborate creatively while maintaining the sense of security and control school administrators deem necessary. (See http://socialnetworksined.wikispaces.com/ for a listing of open and closed global SN sites related to education).

From phones to blogs, SN sites features now come with most communication services to keep up with the demand for social networking (Boyd, 2007, May; Salaway, 2008). At present, SN sites global connections can only go as far as its users language skills allow, but it won’t be long for technology to remedy the glitch. In fact, at the end of this year Google announced the release of Google Wave, an open source new communication tool, which contains a gadget that instantaneously changes text into a possible 40 different languages as you type in an IM type environment.

Globally, social networking has influenced two important social aspects: mediated publics, the new ‘hot spot’ for social hang-outs, and online/offline “friendship” connections. These two reinforce how mediated social technology is radically shaping and redefining public life.

Mediated publics

“[Global] technology does indeed create new social norms.” As social technology is shaping public life, the real world and the global online world are becoming one (Mitrano, 2006). Today’s youth have grown up with online technology and view it as a natural part of their environment. SNS’s are basically unmediated publics - like parks, malls, parking lots, cafes, etc…where people, like students, show up to hang out and connect with friends - except now with real-time, borderless, magnified connections to a globalized audience. According to boyd (2007), unlike unmediated spaces, mediated spaces have four unique qualities: “Persistence.” What is said “sticks around” even if it was written 10 years ago the ideas/beliefs no longer represent that individual; “Searchablity.” Anyone be can looked up; “Replicablitlity.” Since “digital bits are copyable,” conversations easily transfer, increasing plagiarism and doctored information/conversations; and “Invisible audiences.” Instead of a direct, personal conversation to one friend, users typically write to their “imagined audiences,” their collection of friends or their most frequent profile responders and commenters. With the aforementioned, conversations can be indefinitely accessed, recorded, searched, replicated, and altered, all unbeknownst to the original speakers/writers - making it even more difficult to determine anyone’s authenticity. Indeed, social networking, as a mediated public, redefines “public” with its availability to support, alter, and (most often) magnify all interactions for the online world to see.

Online/offline “friendships”

Social networking is redesigning the geography and etiquette of social groups and friendships. SNS practices still allow people to mirror known everyday practices, but without the physical boundaries and limitations of yesterday’s relationships. Social networking strengthens and broadens groups as information boundaries crumble. SN also refines personal relationships (or “friends”) in light of the social network ramifications.

Collectivized interests

SNS’s have birthed and/or reinforced many collectivized interest groups. Collectivized interests groups can now be borderless and have a wider social, political, and economic effect. For example, SNS advocacy groups use their combined knowledge and expertise as leverage with firms and other organizations, like students finding a rally site for immigration rights on campus (Salaway, 2008). Also, support groups that provide collaborative informational behaviors help millions connect and find answers and support for a variety of issues. As a political organizing force, SN sites help mobilize young people to action such as the case of a murdered lawyer in Guatemala. The fixed platform provided by SN sites, according to Michael Cornfield of George Washington University (Fieser, 2009) creates a combination of a powerful global presence through the Web and a group communication medium through SN sites.

SNS’s are not just used by advocacy groups but also for school group activities. A study by the University of Dayton revealed that college students used Facebook predominately for updates on school-related activities as a way to stay connected to their institution. Frequent users felt more connected to their school, its issues, and its groups than non frequent users (Cain, 2008).

The Information Rich and the Information Poor

The marginalization of the third and fourth world has inflicted a new form of poverty, information poverty, on its people due to the lack of infrastructure and economy needed to support the integration of advanced technologies. The world is increasingly divided between information rich and information poor nations and peoples, who are not recognized, and continue to be excluded from the political and economic world system(Clark & Themudo,2006; Crenshaw & Robison, 2006). This divide leads to an increased brain drain as well as a dependence on another kind of foreign aid- knowledge imperialism (Ahmed & Nwagwu, 2006). Castells (1998) offers data that this divide is responsible for the increasing social exclusion of the third and fourth world.

The social exclusion of the have-nots from global networking systems has been approached through various initiatives. The Benton Foundation, a nonprofit organization set up by former U.S. Senator, William Benton and his wife, Helen Hemingway Benton, and the US National Urban League, established the Digital Divide Network (www.digitaldivide.net) in 1999 after President Bill Clinton challenged technology leaders to address the disparity between those with and without telecommunications access. This initiative has developed into a website which enables members to create blogs, maintain discussion forums, and read articles and research on various global networking initiatives for free.

Another global organization addressing the social networking and digital divide is the United Nations Global Alliance for ICT and Development (www.un-gaid.org) whose mission is to “respond to the need and demand for an inclusive global forum and platform for cross-sectoral policy dialogue on the use of ICT for enhancing the achievement of internationally agreed development goals, notably reduction of poverty.” The GAID Committee of eLeaders for Youth & ICT provides opportunities for young people around the world to showcase their work using ICTs through online networks. This initiative is in partnership with TakingITGlobal (www.takingitglobal.org), which is a charitable online social networking organization that focuses on global issues through promoting awareness and engagement among global youth.

An example of a smaller, ground level effort is Opportunity Access in Cahuita, Costa Rica (www.oaccess.org), which was founded in 2000 by Charles Moore, a former Verizon employee. OA’s mission is to “establish public computer centers for under-served communities in order to provide access to current and future opportunities”. This organization serves over 3000 public school students, as well as providing career-track and networking skills for adults.

One of the most pioneering initiatives is the effort of MIT Media Lab’s founder, Nicholas Negroponte (www.laptop.org), which was stated:

to create educational opportunities for the world's poorest children by providing each child with a rugged, low-cost, low-power, connected laptop with content and software designed for collaborative, joyful, self-empowered learning. When children have access to this type of tool they get engaged in their own education. They learn, share, create, and collaborate. They become connected to each other, to the world and to a brighter future.

Mass production of the XO-1 started in November 2007 and the $100.00 laptops are in the hands of around 800,000 children around the world today (Goth, 2005).

Personal relations

SNS’s are commonly used as a convenient means of facilitating offline relationships. Michigan State University research discovered Facebook (a SNS) usage helped students maintain and strengthen relationships and build social ties (Cain, 2008). One user stated, “I have a better social life because I can see what is going on with my friends and I don't have to run up a huge phone bill for calling or texting” (Derbyshire, 2009). In Korea, boyd (2007) explains how “Cyworld has become an integral part of everyday life” with its users using it primarily to stay connected with offline relationships. Instead of calling around or having to speak face-to-face with someone, a user can save a lot of time and conversation just checking his/her updates on a SNS and/or posting a party or event. In other cases, factors such as distance can change an offline friendship into an online one where a SNS may be sought to strengthen the social tie. For example, military members, school friends, relatives, and simply friends separated by distance, all who rarely get to physically connect can use SNS’s to stay current with each other’s lives. In doing so, when an opportunity for gathering does surface, there is less awkwardness, less idle conversation, and less “catching up” because both are familiar with one another’s profiles. SNS’s enable maintaining all offline relationships through space and time (Vitak, 2008).

No matter how weak the ties - friends met in class, an interesting person met at a restaurant, or a funny person met on a trip - people can all be reachable, approachable, and maintainable through an SNS connection. Even though a majority of research shows that SNS’s are used primarily to maintain previous offline social ties and relationships like school, military, clubs, and groups, (boyd, 2007, May) a 2008 study by Educase shows a growing trend in using SNS’s to actually build social ties. By allowing users to conveniently connect (and disconnect) with others whenever they feel and, at the same time, present (and hide) aspects of themselves whenever they feel, it adds a new dimension of availability and discretion – thus, making global friendship connections more easily controlled and manageable. SNS’s permit its users to conveniently maintain a large number of “weak ties” and feel more comfortable connecting and making these new “friends” online. Albeit, these weaker ties primarily consist of friends of friends; therefore, they are not communicated with as much as offline friends but are handy in providing a wide array of comments, suggests, and/or answers to questions one posts. Accordingly, SNS’s globalized friend base makes receiving an answer broader yet also warmer than posting to an online forum (considering the SNS users are all semi-acquainted with all respondents) (Salaway,2008)

Conclusion

The dynamic structure within Social Networking technologies are transforming media landscapes, extending capabilities, and expanding opportunities for educators as they pursue their evolving mission today. New platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and TakingITGlobal are engaging participation and empowering insights never before imagined. People who had previously only been readers of the news are now publishers; the power source of information has changed. Cross generational collaborative and collective interests expressed within social networks push forward fresh and innovative research, teaching and learning. The galvanization of online social relationships are revolutionizing our understanding of the world, and driving the academic needs of today into the future.

Social networking (SN) provides a format for individuals to connect in a meaningful way and for a meaningful purpose. It is an intellectual phenomenon that is changing educational pedagogy, policies, student /teacher boundaries, and privacy. SN represents a shift from aging, top-down classroom technologies such as Blackboard, to what e-learning practitioners call “personal learning environments.” The social nature of knowledge, and the constructivist construct of SN, provides a platform for building this knowledge through social interaction, debate and compromise within a local and global context. The challenge presented is how to harness and integrate the more innovative, decentralized and inclusive power and promise of SN with the traditional and fixed structures of our current academic system so that the non-formal structures within SN can be formalized in order for educational institutions to expand the way they teach.

The incorporation of SN platforms into corporate environments provides an example of institutional settings moving from non-formal to formal learning. Employees are being called upon to collaborate with and to educate one another. SN is utilized by the business world as a cost-effective alternative to formalized trainings and learning seminars. Business Neo-liberal trends in globalization, along with technological advances, are also pushing the need to connect, collaborate and share information as efficiently as possible to give corporations a competitive edge. Some of the general benefits that are associated with corporate use of SNs include: promoting teamwork and collaboration, effective problem-solving outlets, efficiency and cost effectiveness.

Critics fear that SNSs are bastions of self-congratulatory communities who already share the same belief-set, and are hence pre-disposed to agree on issues. However, formal networks like: companies, teacher networks, school administrators, and even formal classrooms can also at times be subject to too much social cohesiveness and not enough dissention to provide the empowerment needed to move forward. Another criticism of SNs is that they are increasing the divide between information rich and information poor nations and peoples, and are responsible for the mounting social exclusion of the third and fourth world. This divide is felt to lead to an ever-increasing brain drain as well as a dependence on another kind of foreign aid-knowledge imperialism. These issues require ongoing reflection as educational structures are reshaped and rethought in light of the social networking era.

An important implication of our SN study is to understand the degree and nature of the learning it allows. Since SN is fundamentally changing the way students and society are communicating, (Salaway, et al., 2008) institutions need to understand what this communication means. In order to truly reach students, institutions must seek to understand them, speak in terms they understand, and then guide them to where they want to go in the future. Social networks are perfect tools for doing this because users work within its framework to communicate effectively and efficiently at a complex level and negotiate this mediated environment through collaborating to solve problems and teaching themselves through self-study, self-initiated research, and trial and error. This self-directed, nonformal learning provides long-term and positive results. Educational institutions need to respond quickly to the new characteristics displayed by students as they navigate SN to ensure they receive the best support needed to develop new literacies. The nonformal elements, such as: the social constructionist approach, fluidity, and an egalitarian influence (bottom-up / horizontal / top-down) present opportunities to compliment and re-think existing structures within formal learning institutions. We do not propose that non-formal learning is “better” in all matters; nor do we propose a complete departure from traditional learning practices. However, the opportunities presented by SN should not be ignored. Learning institutions risk becoming antiquated and alienated from their audiences if innovation and cultural shifts are not acknowledged and incorporated. The nature of our “connected” world, and the nature of globalization, has supported the spread of SNS usage, and aided in SN legitimacy and permanency. Realizing SN serves as an integral part of the students’ learning process and is not merely a distraction, Salaway et al. (2008) concluded, “Where students lead, institutions must follow.”

References

Ahmed, A. & Nwagwu W.E. (2006). Challenges and opportunities of e-learning networks in Africa. Society for International Development 49(2), 86-92.

American Libraries Association. (2007). Social Networking Under Scrutiny. American Libraries, 38 (4), 19.

American Library Association. (2007). Patron Abuse Prompts Trial of Social Network Filter. American Library , 38 (8), 41.

Andrews, R. (2007, April 19). Don’t tell your parents: School embrace Myspace. Wired Magazine. Retrieved on June 29, 2009, from http://www.wired.com

“Benefits and Opportunities.” Digizen.org. (2007). Retrieved on June 8 & June 22, 2009, from

http://www.digizen.org/socialnetworking/benefits.aspx

Bosworth, Martin H. (2005). "What’s Inside MySpace.com?" ConsumerAffairs.com. Retrieved on June 15, 2009, from

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/03/myspace_inside.html

boyd, d. (2004). Friendster and publicly articulated social networks. Proceedings of ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press. 1279-1282.

boyd, d. (2007, May). Social network sites: Public, private, or what? Knowledge Tree 13 [Electronic version]. http://kt.flexiblelearning.net.au/tkt2007/?page_id=28

boyd, danah. (2007). “Viewing American Class Divisions Through Facebook and MySpace.” Apophenia Blog Essay. June 24, 2007. Retrieved on June 18, 2009, from

http://www.danah.org/papers/essays/ClassDivisions.html

boyd, d. (2007, June).We googled you: Should Fred hire Mimi despite her online history? Case Commentary, Harvard Business Review.

boyd, d. (2007). Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites:The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage. Retrieved July 5, 2009, from

danah.org: http://www.danah.org/papers/WhyYouthHeart.pdf

boyd, d. & Donath, J. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22 (4), 71-82.

boyd, d. & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship[Electronic version]. Journal of

Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html

Cain, J. (2008) Online social networking issues within academia and pharmacy education. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2008; 72 (1).

Cannon, Dan. (2009). “Using Social Networking in Business 101.” Nicasio Design & Development. April 13, 2009. Retrieved on

June 18, 2009, from http://nicasiodesign.com/blog/social-networking/using-social-networking-in-business/

Carr, Nicholas. (2008). “What The Internet Is Doing To Our Brains: Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The Atlantic, July/August

2008. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google

Clark, J.D. & Themudo N.S. (2006). Linking the web and the street: Internet-based “dotcauses” and the “anti-globalization” movement . World Development 34(1), 50-74.

Chung, Chia-Jung. (2005). “Teacher Experiences of Learning in a Computer-Mediated Communication Context.” Retrieved on June 17, 2009, from

http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Research/NECC_Research_Paper_Archives/NECC_2005/Chung-Chia-Chung-NECC05.pdf

Conceicao, Simone C.O., and Barbara E. Jones. (2008). “Can Social Networking Tools Foster Informal Learning?” 24th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning. Retrieved

on May 17, 2009, from http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource_library/proceedings/08_13292.pdf

Crenshaw, E.M. & Robison, K.K. (2006). Globalization and the digital divide: The role of structural conduciveness and global

connection in internet diffusion. Social Science Quarterly 87(1), 190-207.

Daniel, Ben, Dirk Morrison, and Richard A. Schwier. (2008). “A Comparison of Formal and Non-Formal Virtual Learning Communities.” Proceedings of the Seventh LASTED International

Conference. March 17-19, 2008. Retrieved on May 15, 2009 http://www.scribd.com/doc/3886618/A-Comparison-of-Formal-and-NonFormal- Virtual-Learning-Communities

Deloitte LLP. (2009). “The Reputational Risk Implications of Social Networking.” May 18, 2009. Retrieved on June 18, 2009,

from https://www.hrtools.com/staffing/the_reputational_risk_implications_of_social_networking.aspx

Derbyshire, D. (2009, July 3). Social websites harm children’s brains: Chilling warning to parents from top neuroscientist. Mail Online retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk

Ezzy, Ebrahim. (2006). “Social Networking: Time for a Silver Bullet.” Retrieved on June 15, 2009, from http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/social_networking

Facer, K., Grant, L., Owen, M., & Sayers, S. (2006). Opening Education: Social Software and Learning. Retrieved June 20, 2009,

from FutureLab.org: http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/opening_education/Social_Software_report.pdf

Fieser, E. (2009, May). A murder prompts demonstrations: Young people – linked through the internet – call for Guatemala’s :president to step down. GlobalPost, Retrieved on June 26,

2009 from http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/the-americas/090515/murder-propmpts-demonstrations.

Fono, D., & Raynes-Goldie, K. (2006). Hyperfriends and Beyond: Friendship and Social Norms on LiveJournal. Internet Research

Annual,4 [Selected Papers from the Association of Internet Researchers Conference].

G.B. (2006). House Holds Hearings on Social-Networking Websites. American Libraries, 37 (7), 10.

Gedda, Rodney. (2009). “Social Networking For Business: Plan Less For Less Pain.” Computerworld Australia. February 24, 2009.

Retrieved on June 22, 2009, from http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/022409-social-networking-for-business-plan.html

Goth, G. (2005). Digital-divide efforts are getting more attention. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Internet Computing 9(4), 8-11.

Hargadon, Steve. (2008). “Thoughts on Social Networking in Education.” Retrieved on June 15, 2009, from http://www.stevehargadon.com/2008/11/thoughts-on-social-networking-in.html

Hargittai, E. (2007). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social network sites[Electronic version]. Journal

of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1). http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/hargittai.html

“Informal Learning Becomes Formal.” Bersin & Associates. January 22, 2009. Retrieved on June 3, 2009, from http://joshbersin.com/2009/01/21/informal-learning-becomes-formal/

Karp, Scott. (2008). “Creating Customized Social Networking Applications For Business.” Publishing 2.0. February 22, 2008.

Retrieved on June 22, 2009, from http://publishing2.com/2008/02/22/creating-customized-social-networking-applications-for-business/

Klein, Karen E. (2008). “Are Social Networking Sites Useful for Business?” Buisnessweek. August 2008. Retrieved on June 22,

2009, from http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/aug2008/sb2008086_346094.htm

Lipka, S. (2007). For Professors, 'Friending' Can Be Fraught. The Chroniclce of Higher Edcuaiton , 54 (15), xxx.

Mitrano, Tracy. (2006). “A Wider World: Youth, Privacy, and Social Networking Technologies.” Educause Review,

November/December 2006. Retrieved June 10, 2009, from http://learn.ed.uiuc.edu/mod/resource/view.php?inpopup=true&id=38957

Molnar. Andras. (2009). “What is a MicroBlog, Presentation.” Retrieved July 2, 2009 from http://molnarandras.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/what-is-a-microblog-presentation/

National Association of School Boards. (2006, November 20). Social-networking sites confound schools. eSchoolNews.

National School Boards Association. (2007). “Creating & Connecting// Research and Guidelines on Online Social- and Educational-

Networking.” July 2007. Retrieved on May 15, 2009, from http://www.nsba.org/site/docs/41400/41340.pdf

Phillips, Sarah. (2007). “A Brief History of Facebook.” Retrieved on June 15, 2009, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/jul/25/media.newmedia

Public Broadcasting Service. (2008, July 1). PBS Launches Online Education Community Where Pre-K-12 Educators Can Contect,

Contribute, and Grow . Retrieved July 24, 2009, from PBS News: http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/news/20080701_prek-12.html

Rowse. Darren. (2005). “What is a Blog?” Retrieved July 2, 2009 from http://www.problogger.net/archives/2005/02/05/what-is-a-blog/

Salaway, G., Caruso, J. B., & Nelson, M. (2008). The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology

[Electronic version]. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 8. http://www.educause.edu/ecar

Siemans, G. (2004, December 4). ePortfolios. Retrieved June 23, 2009, from ELearnSpace: http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/eportfolios.htm

Smith, Mark K. (Updated May 11, 2009). “Non-formal Education.” Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Retrieved June 10, 2009, from http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-nonfor.htm

Sorentino, J. (2008). Online education: Study shows social networking a boon for education. Retrieved on June 29, 2009, from http://www.education.com

Stutzman. Fred. (2007). “Social Network Transitions.” Retrieved June 29, 2009 from http://chimprawk.blogspot.com/2007/11/social-network-transitions.html

Swartz, Jon. (2008). Social Networking Sites Help Companies Boost Productivity. USA Today. October 8, 2008. Retrieved on June

2, 2009, from http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2008-10-07-social-network-work_N.htm

Universal Service Adminstrative Company. (2009). Overview of the Program. Retrieved June 23, 2009, from Universal Service

Adminstrative Company: http://www.universalservice.org/sl/about/overview-program.aspx

Vitak, J. (2008). Facebook “friends”: How online identities impact offline relationships. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Georgetown University.

Weir, L. (2009, May 27). Kids Create -- and Critique on -- Social Networks . Retrieved June 24, 2009, from Edutopia.org:

http://www.edutopia.org/digital-generation-youth-network-literacy%20

Willard, N. (2006). Schools and Online Social Networking. Retrieved June 11, 2009, from Education World: http://www.education-world.com/a_issues/issues/issues423.html

Wolman, D. (2008, August 18). The critics need a reboot. The Internet hasn’t led us into a dark age. Wired Magazine. Retrieved June 29, 2009, from http://www.wired.com

Young Adult Library Services Association. (2006). Teens & Social Networking in Schools & Public Libraries; a toolkit for

librarians and library workers. Retrieved June 13, 2009, from Young Adult Library Services Association: www.ala.org/yalsa

Young, J. (2009). How Not to Lose Face on Facebook, for Professors. The Chronicle of Higher Education , 55 (22).

Zhao, Shanyang. (2006). “The Internet and the Transformation of the Reality of Everyday Life: Toward a New Analytic Stance in

Sociology.” Sociological Inquiry, (Vol. 76, No. 4, pp. 458- 474). Retrieved May 13, 2009, from http://astro.temple.edu/~bzhao001/Internet_Lifeworld.pdf

External Links

Ego-centric Social Networks Examples:

• Facebook
• LinkedIn
• Friendster
• MySpace

Object-centric Social Networks Examples:

• Flickr
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• YouTube