With the launch of Social Networking Site such as SixDegrees.com in 1997, social networking had been brought to a new level by bundling multiple networking functionalities (e.g. personal profiles, list of friends or followers and various forms of addressing ones network). Sites such as Facebook and MySpace had over 200 million registered users each by 2009 (Maranto & Barton 2010) and approximately 50% of Internet users worldwide have adopted blogging, photo - and video-sharing, social networking or social gaming (Pascu 2008). The popularity of social networking sites has also been noticed by educators, who argued that the pervasiveness of social media shapes new learning styles with the current generation often referred to as ‘digital natives’ (Prensky 2001) or ‘new millennium learners’ (Prensky 2010).

Problem area: However, even though simplified conceptualisations of online learners might help to raise awareness of important issues – see digital literacy and Prensky’s (2001) coinage of ‘digital natives’ – overly flat depictions of online learning can also lead to distorted perceptions of students’ reality (Selwyn 2009). We cannot simply hope for social networking to ‘fix’ issues that have systemic origins. For example, if we consider that innovative forms of learning require innovative approaches to teaching, then it becomes evident that we cannot neglect teachers’ roles. Hence, we are aware that technology can only be a small part of a more comprehensive discussion about education. By focusing on aspects such as power, objects and affect within social networking sites, we hope to contribute to one particular grand challenge in TEL: Contextualising Learning.

Blending learning environments: Engagement in communities can happen through virtual or physical world interaction. Avoiding technology determinism, i.e. assuming technology to be a prime cause of social change (Surry & Farquhar 1997), we argue that community members can use any technology in ways that support the formation of networks. The virtual realm is just one medium among many and networking in a university context can quickly shift from virtual activities to activities in the real world. For example, Sawyer & Scutter (2009) reported that interactions in virtual communities triggered group activities off-line, helping to retaining first year students.

Choosing personal learning environments: A fundamental difference between networks in the public sphere (facebook, YouTube, etc.) and networks as we might see them in an educational context is the role of power exercised by universities who can emphasise the use of networking technologies in situations where students might not have used them voluntarily (Selwyn 2007). Learners are not automatically in the driver’s seat when it comes to changing and configuring their learning environment in ways that best fit their current needs. However, Goodyear and Elis (2007) argue that we cannot simply categorise learners as ‘compliant users’ or ‘media savvy experts’ without taking into account what priorities are communicated by their teachers or future employers. If students think that using technology will not provide sufficient benefits in a course or for future job applications, they may well forego the use of technology even so they would have the necessary skills.

Differences between public and educational networks: This means that in an educational context, teachers can seldom make neutral recommendations – the power to open up, shape and configure learning technologies remains mostly with teachers who then set standards for what is allowed in a network and what is not. Hence, even though institutions want to harness social networking among students, they are still interested in setting ‘rules of interactions’ and defining appropriate content. Whereas public social networks are often informal, organically grown networks with shifting agendas; traditional education systems are largely formally designed institutions with a set curriculum. Differences between public and educational networks are also conveyed through the technological set up of networks in education. Teachers might be the ones deciding who can or cannot join the network and by deciding who can see, they effectively control ‘who will have access to members’ digital footprint and who has not’.

Affective support in networks: Being networked rather than isolated is seen as a crucial support mechanism when one has to cope with substantial stress and change (Krause & Coates 2008). Following two examples where affect has been shown to be an essential success factor. Students need to develop a sense of belonging to a wider community, particularly during the first year of university, in order to get that informal support that helps them to understand what can be considered as ‘normal stress’ or where they stand in relation to what they aim to become (Sawyer & Scutter 2009). Maintaining a link to their student communities becomes important again when students go on placements where they need to adapt to a different environment with yet another set of expectations. In these situations, sharing experiences with other students is beneficial as a debrief for students who may be feeling isolated.

Concluding Remarks: Although networked learning and social networking has been researched widely and from a variety of angles, our understanding of networking in an educational context is still limited. What seems to be of importance for the longevity of a network is developing, practicing and negotiating individual values in regards to the values of one’s community. One way technology can contribute to the formation and negotiation of values is by capturing members’ arguments in favour or against a given value, revealing the level of agreement achieved. Both functions – capturing arguments and documenting agreements – seem crucial because they create transparency about the state of a community and the wellbeing of its members.
read more...
> see the resource