Memorial University ofNewfoundland

Social Networking: The Good, The Bad andThe Ugly

Assignment 2

ED 6426

By: David Smart

For Professor Allister Dyke

November 22, 2011

Social Networking Services: The Bad, The Good and The Ugly

Introduction:

Social networking services (SNSs) are a huge part of

our globalized interconnected technological world. Their

recent popularity, especially among teenagers and young

adults, is undeniable and “on the rise globally” (Fraser,

2008). Millions of users of all ages from all corners of the

world connect to one another through their profiles on any

one of hundreds if not thousands of available SNSs. Most do

so to exchange information much the same, as they are able

to via more traditional methods such as face-to-face, email

and the telephone. However, online social networking

resources are practically infinite in scope. Such ubiquity,

versatility and value do not come without a price. From an

educational perspective the increasing use of these popular

sites can have both positive and negative outcomes.

Consequently there are no shortages of proponents and

opponents of using SNSs within the realm of education.

Regardless of ones point of view, there can be no denying

that SNSs are here for better or for worse. Therefore it is

the responsibility of both parents and teachers to prepare

students for the world of today and tomorrow.

The Good:

Good Models of Learning:

In addition to providing users a space to amuse

themselves, SNSs can provide an ideal place for learning to

take place. It has afforded us a more socially interactive,

creative and empowering medium (Collis and Moonen, 2008),

which facilitates learning and builds important 21st century

skills. In many ways, SNSs “mirror much of what we know to

be good models of learning, in that they are collaborative

and encourage active participatory role for users” (Maloney,

2007). Within SNS communities, “knowledge sharing, learning,

and problem-solving practices occur” (Davis, 2010).

According to Fardanesh (2002), meaningful learning occurs

from a process of knowing through problem solving. Problem-

based learning aids in the developing of critical thinking

(Kek and Huijser, 2011), a skill much needed in today’s

information bloated and fast paced world (Grable and Reed,

2007). Like many of the current New Internet Usages, SNSs

also encourage collaboration, flexibility and the free

exchange of knowledge, which are all conducive to solving

problems, and acquiring new knowledge. As a result, teachers

who embrace more learner-centered approaches to education

are attracted to the possibilities that SNSs offer,

especially since young people are already familiar and

engaged with these services (Selwyn, 2009). Facebook in the

US alone has over 55% of the teenage online population wired

(Lenhart and Madden, 2007). According to Online Schools

(2011), those numbers are growing rapidly, especially among

college students. “These trends suggest that social

networking websites are an increasingly important domain for

adolescents’ and young adults’ peer relationships” (Szwedo,

Mikami, and Allen, 2011).

Empowering:

As popular technology shifts towards a more socially

interactive, creative and empowering media, the way users

perceive and construct their world also changes (Wagner,

2008). Internet users, especially the younger generation of

users sometimes referred to as the ‘Net Generation’ and

‘Generation Next,’ are free to explore and shape their world

in an unprecedented variety of directions (Tapscott, 2008).

Social networking sites provide all the necessary tools

users need to harness this power. Students are not the only

people who benefit. It also provides underrepresented groups

with “powerful opportunities to cultivate authentic voices

and create empowering experiences” (King, 2009). Less

dramatically, InspireEast (2010) provides communities a

space to learn and share opinions about their communities

through the use of SNSs. People everywhere are finding ways

to enrich their lives, keep themselves up to date on issues

that matter to them and express themselves openly.

Availability:

Access to the Internet and SNSs is available

practically anywhere. The number of computers available in

libraries, the classroom, and in students’ homes is

increasing. As costs for hardware, software and

communications fall (Wayne, 2010); more people can afford to

access the Internet and SNSs. I live in a third world

country and reliable Internet access from home costs me less

than a dollar a day. Even the number of social networking

services is increasing. The positive spin off on all of this

is that more information can be accessed, shared and created

by a larger and more diversified group than ever before in

history. Not surprisingly, increasing numbers of people who

access the Internet are connecting to and using SNSs for any

number of purposes (Hampton et al., 2011).

Mobility:

Modern technology has miniaturized and sped up the

world of information communication technology (ICT).

Smartphones have become both more powerful and popular.

Today, smartphones such as the iPhone 4S can store gigabits

worth of data, surf the web, take and share pictures, play

games, make videos and play music. Oh, and of course, they

are handy to make and receive phone calls.

Smartphone versatility not withstanding, they have

become the preferred method of online communication (Perez,

2010). A poll taken by Online School (2011) found that a

growing number of Facebook users are signing in using their

smartphones. ComScore (2010) found that in 2010 the social

networking audience more than tripled. The obvious trend is

that more and more mobile users are actively sharing

information and knowledge over SNSs.

Flexibility:

Variety is the spice of life. Although there is a

tendency among people to gravitate to sites occupied by

peers, there is a social networking service that practically

meets every niche (convertiv, 2011). Regardless of how

students are getting connected, they are now able to access

and reach an unprecedented amount of people and information.

Social networking and other new Internet usage services

provide us with more flexibility than traditional classrooms

(Moorman, 2009). Students can easily collaborate on solving

“real-life” problems with almost anyone anywhere. There are

almost 1 billion Facebook users worldwide. Users tend not to

single out one particular way to communicate but rather

gravitate towards a media that fits their immediate needs

(Szwedo, Mikami, and Allen, 2011). Students can work out

real life problems and solve them in real time. Learning no

longer needs to begin and end in the classroom. Students can

actively participate with others anywhere and at any time

(Quan-Haase and Young, 2010).

The Bad:

The Hazards:

As entertaining and educational as SNSs can be, they

present a variety of issues that parents and educators take

seriously. For one, users of all ages may become addicted,

compulsive users who exhaust an overly exorbitant amount of

time socializing online. Such behavior can adversely affect

an individual who may be spending up to 6 hours a day or

more on the Internet (Koc, 2011). Second, there are concerns

about the exposure to inappropriate material, cyber-bullying

and Internet predators. These very real concerns present

“numerous problems for parents, school administrators, and

law enforcement on a national level” (McKenna, 2007). Third,

many users of social networks are unaware of, or care little

about, the legal ramifications of their actions.

Fortunately, there are the parents and teachers who worry

about the consequences resulting from irresponsible and

shortsighted usage of SNSs (Kite, Gable and Filippelli,

2011). Unfortunately, once something is posted online, it

can remain on the Internet indefinitely –a concept that does

not easily sink into the consciousness of your average

teenager. Last but not least, there are those who worry that

our young learners with all the world’s information at their

fingertips will loose the ability to think –or more

specifically think critically.

The Obsession:

Whenever Hollywood wants to show cigarette addiction,

they simply show a person lighting up a smoke as soon as

they wake. Today, polls show that the first thing many

social network users do when they wake up is log in (Online

School, 2011). If these polls are accurate, social

networking activities may outpace the television as the

world’s greatest time sink. Nevertheless, none of these

factors constitutes a rise in compulsive disorders or an

inability to control social networking activities. Yet for

many habitual users of SNSs, there can be predisposition

towards compulsive behavior –a need to keep in touch.

Typical SNSs users have more online contact friends than

they have in real life. Managing such large online social

relationships can quickly become time consuming and

problematic (Ceyhan, 2011). This can particularly be true

with university students who, as part of their course work,

spend a lot of time on line.

Cyber-bullying:

Concerns about cyber-bullying, Internet predators and

access to inappropriate material are often the

justifications behind the strict prohibitions against SNSs

(Ferriter, 2010). In the case of inappropriate material,

setting up filters is a straightforward technical issue for

the computer or information technology (IT) department to

handle. Perhaps a different matter altogether for parents

unfamiliar with information communication technology (ICT).

Cyber-bullying and Internet predators, on the other hand,

present another set of problems for the community entirely

(Kite, 2011). These are much more pervading problems than

unwanted Internet sites. Moreover the fear and degradation

experienced by someone being bullied online can be every bit

as damaging as the traditional cliché haunting the school

hallways. Unfortunately, blocking social networking in

schools does nothing in preventing these unfortunate forms

of psychological intimidation and harm.

Legalities:

Sharing information and collaborating on projects over

SNSs may seem ideal, but users cannot systematically ignore

intellectual property rights in the process. Henderson et

al. (2010) warn that “[t]here are significant privacy,

intellectual property, copyright and disclosure risks

associated with the ill-considered use of social networking

sites.” Conversely, user posts on social networking sites

like Facebook may become the property of the host to the

dismay of users (BBC News, 2009). Users are often unaware,

forget or simply ignore both ends of these fundamental

legalities. However, companies do not take what is posted

and shared online so lightly. Many companies, for obvious

reasons, do not want inside information leaked via SNSs

(Palmer, 2011). A growing numbers of high-profile companies

such as Sony are going so far as to block and prohibit these

services much like certain educational institutes do.

Responsibility:

What may constitute as trivial today may come back to

haunt you later. Sharing pictures of inappropriate or silly

behavior may get some laughs or “likes” from friends but

backwash can potentially rob users of opportunities or even

cost them their jobs. It can also generate plenty of

animosity. During a radio talk show on WAMU 88.5 (2009),

guests spoke of the incredible range of SNS faux pas that

users frequently make –young and old alike. The unfortunate

tales discussed on the radio show often ended tragically

with the breaking up of families, the loss of jobs and the

end of friendships. Huge risks to SNS users are “the

permanent traces left behind of their transgressive

conduct.” Not ignorant of these risks companies are once

again concerned about leaks that may damage public

relations. As a result, taking several measures to curb the

problem (Insurance Journal, 2011).

The Death of Critical Thinking:

One area that ought not to be overlooked is the demise

of critical thinking. Information overload, some argue, is

dulling our ability to think critically (Grable and Reed,

2007). Despite the incredible amount of information

available, young learners seem to lack “the abilities to

identify credible and reliable information” (Kek and

Huijser, 2010). This all-important ability allows “us to see

the world from multiple points of view and imagine alternate

outcomes” (Cookson, 2009). The importance of teaching

critical thinking skills cannot be understated (Chadwick,

2011).

The Ugly:

Inevitably, educators must examine the potential value

and problems inherent among social networking services such

as Facebook and MySpace. We live in a digital world and the

increasing popularity of SNSs seems to refute earlier

predictions of their quick demise (Desi, 2010). The

popularity of social networking tools available on the

Internet is not a passing fad. Quite the opposite is true.

Like it or not, it appears that social networks are here to

stay; at least for the foreseeable future. The simple

reality is that these services facilitate social

interaction. As a result, people are attracted to what they

offer –young and old. We are social beings after all.

Since the burden of preparing our young for today and

the future falls on the shoulders of both parents and

educators (Lehmann, 2009), we must come to terms with the

increasing popularity of SNSs. Ignoring the realities facing

our children does nothing to protect them. Therefore,

filtering or prohibiting access to SNSs may only guarantee

that children will in fact fall easily into the traps that

we hope to save them from. I cannot imagine anything worse

than condemning our young to a world mired in ignorance

despite a wealth of information.

At least with the popularity of SNSs we know where our

children are congregating. For one, this makes it easier for

parents and the authorities to spot and isolate predators,

pedophiles and anti-social behavior (Boyd and Jenkins,

2006). On a positive note, good intelligence on where and

how our young are spending most of their online time can

help us better understand them (Ferriter, 2010). Moreover,

taking advantage of the already existing level of engagement

among leaners makes social networking services excellent

tools to promote education. All that is proper guidance and

the desire to follow the best educational models available.

Recently, the school where I work finally repealed its

policy on blocking SNSs and the use of cell phones. In a

drive to maintain the recent acquisition of US

accreditation, administration quickly learned the importance

of guiding children towards proper and effective use of the

tools they had once banned. Besides, the efforts to prevent

the activities the school once sought to prevent were

completely in vain. Since the ban was lifted, students are

continuing to access Facebook as usual.

While reflecting on my school’s earlier efforts and

those of other institutions to filter out SNSs, I realized

how futile their efforts were. Whenever people enjoy,

desire or simply fancy, they will find a way to get it.

Prohibition in the US during the 1920s and early 30s failed

(Thorton, 1991), as it seems to be with the ongoing war on

drugs. Whenever access is denied, users find other means.

Since users are migrating towards accessing SNSs via their

cell phones, they can easily circumvent their school or work

place firewalls by using their 3G or 4G service.

References

BBC NEWS. (2009). Websites Keeping Deleted Photos. Retrieved from BBC News:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8060407.stm

Boyd, D and Jenkins, H. (2006). Discussion: MySpace and Deleting Online Predators

Act (DOPA). Retrieved from Danah.org: http://www.danah.org/papers/MySpaceDOPA.html

Ceyhan, A. (2011). University Students' Problematic InternetUse and Communication

Skills According to the Internet Use Purposes. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11(1), 69-77.

Chadwick, C. (2011). A Conceptual Model for Teaching Critical Thinking in a

Knowledge Economy. Educational Technology, 51(3), 37-42.

ComScore. (2010). Facebook and Twitter Access via Mobile Browser Grows by Triple-

Digits in the Past Year. Retrieved from ComScore: http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2010/3/Facebook_and_Twitter_Access_via_Mobile_Browser_Grows_by_Triple-Digits

ComScore (2010). Social Networking Ranks as Fastest-Growing Mobile Content

Category. Retrieved from ComScore: http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2010/6/Social_Networking_Ranks_as_Fastest-Growing_Mobile_Content_Category

Desi, R. (2010). Top Ten Reason to Ban Social Media Access at Work. Retrieved from

Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/velocity/2010/03/16/top-ten-reasons-to-ban-social-media-access-at-work/

Fraser, J. (2008). Young People and Social Networking Services. Retrieved from

Digizen.org: http://www.digizen.org/socialnetworking/sn.aspx

Ferriter, W. M. (2010). Digitally Speaking. Educational Leadership, 68(4), 87-88.

Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2008). Web 2.0 Tools and Processesin Higher Education:

Quality Perspectives.

Quality Perspectives. Educational Media International, 45(2), 93-106.

Convertiv. (2011). Niche Social Networking Sites. Retrieved from Convertiv:

http://www.convertiv.com/niche-social-networking-sites/

Cookson, P. W. (2009). What would Socrates Say? Educational Leadership, 67(1), 8-14.

Davis, L. J. (2010, January 1). Social Networking Sites as Virtual Communities of

Practice: A Mixed Method Study. ProQuest LLC.

Fardanesh, H. (2002). Learning Theory Approaches and Teaching Methods. British

Journal Of Educational Technology, 33(1), 95-98.

Ferriter, W. M. (2010). Digitally Speaking. Educational Leadership, 68(4), 87-88.

Grable, L. & Reed, R. (2007). Professional Development for 21st Century Teachers:

Digital Just-in-time Support. In R. Carlsen et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference2007 (pp. 343-346). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Hampton, K., Goulet, L. S., Rainie, L., Purcell, K. (2011). Social Networking Sites and

Our Lives. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Technology-and-social-networks.aspx.

Henderson, M., de Zwart, M., Lindsay, D., & Phillips, M. (2010). Legal Risks for

Students Using Social Networking Sites. Australian Educational Computing, 25(1), 3-7.

InspireEast. (2010). Social Media in Empowerment. Retrieved from: http://www.inspire-east.org.uk/socialmediainempowerment.aspx

Insurance Journal. (2011). Europe’s Risk Managers Concerned by SocialMedia

Reputation Damage. Retrieved from Insurance Journal: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/

2011/10/24/221236.htm

Lehmann, C. (2009). Shifting Ground. Principal Leadership, 10(4), 18-21.

Kek, M. A., & Huijser, H. (2011). The Power of Problem-BasedLearning in Developing

Critical Thinking Skills: Preparing Students for Tomorrow's Digital Futures in Today's Classrooms. HigherEducation Research And Development, 30(3), 329-341.

King, K. P. (2009). From the Sidelines to Center Stage: Opportunities to Discover Voice

and Empowerment through Web 2.0 and New Media for LGBTQAdult Learners. New Horizons in Adult Education & Human ResourceDevelopment, 23(3), 55-64.

Kite, S. L., Gable, R., & Filippelli, L. (2010). Assessing Middle School Students'

Knowledge of Conduct and Consequences and Their Behaviors regarding the Use of Social Networking Sites.Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(5), 158-163.

Koc, M. (2011). Internet Addiction and Psychopathology. Turkish Online Journal Of

Educational Technology - TOJET, 10(1), 143-148.

Lenhart, A. and Madden, M (2007). Social Networking Sites and Teens. Retrieved from

Pew Internet: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2007/Social-Networking-Websites-and-Teens/Data-Memo/Findings.aspx

Maloney, E. J. (2007). What Web 2.0 Can Teach Us about Learning. Chronicle Of

Higher Education, 53(18).

McKenna, P. 2007. The Rise of Cyberbullying. New Scientist 195 (2613): 26–27.

Moorman, H. (2009). Adventures in Web 2.0: Introducing Social Networking into My

Teaching. Horace, 25(1).

Nnambdi, K. (2009, February 17). Social Networking: Hazards and Opportunities.

Retrieved from American University Radio: http://thekojonnamdishow.org/audio-player?nid=1400

Online School. (2011). Obsessed with Facebook. Retrieved fromhttp://www.onlineschools.org/blog/facebook-obsession/

Quan-Haase, A., & Young, A. L. (2010). Uses and Gratifications of Social Media: A

Comparison of Facebook and Instant Messaging. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(5), 350-361.

Palmer, M. (2011). Third of Companies Block Social Media. Retrieved from Financial

Times: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/4edb8512-d7de-11e0-a5d9-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F4edb8512-d7de-11e0-a5d9-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=#axzz1eO4732cz

Perez, S. (2010). Social Networking Now More Popular on Mobile than Desktop.

Retrieved from http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/social_networking_now_more_popular_on_mobile_than_desktop.php

Selwyn, N. (2009). Learning, Media and Technology. Vol. 34, No. 2, June 2009, 157–174.

Szwedo, D. E., Mikami, A., & Allen, J. P. (2011). Qualities of Peer Relations on Social

Networking Websites: Predictions from Negative Mother-Teen Interactions. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(3), 595-607.

Tapscott, D. (2008). Grown Up Digital. New York, NY. McGraw-Hill.

Thorton, M. (1991). Policy Analysis: Alcohol Prohibition Was a Failure. Retrieved from

CATO Institute: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1017

Wagner, T. (2008). The Global Achievement Gap. New York, NY. Basic Books.

Wayne, G. (2010). Are you wired?. Leadership, 39(3), 16-18.