Social Media, Networking, and 21st Century Literacies
Upon reading two articles: Welcome to the Social Web (Hengstler, 2013), and New Literacies: Everyday Practices and Social Learning (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011), I am beginning to realize the importance of how one defines and implements online social networking practices for social media in a professional context.
Lankshear and Knobel (2011) point out that a primary tenet of social network theory is the placement of the individual at the center of his/her networks. They also delineate between the order resulting from ‘social networks’, and the order resulting from ‘social groups’ or ‘community’. Lanshear and Knobel (2011) quote, “Wellman (2001: 227) claims that ‘we find community in networks, not groups’, and that while we ‘often view the world in terms of groups’, people nonetheless, ‘function in networks’. Lankshear and Knobel (2011) go on to differentiate between ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ ties within networks (strong ties forming from regular contact, and weak ties from less regular contact), and they note that loosely knit networks - now prevalent due to technological advances and the affordances of the web - are becoming increasingly important. It is discussed that weak ties are important for accessing new ideas and information, and thus they are necessary for stimulating innovation. As an educator, this is especially relevant when considering ways to facilitate student learning of 21st century skills and competencies.
Julia Hengstler (2013) notes there are several key expectations for participants (users) of the ‘social web’, which include contributing value, engaging directly, and monitoring activity in order to respond to the network (audience). She describes a variety of social media tools, and cites some concerning statistics regarding participants’ understanding (or lack thereof) of privacy settings. For example, only “15% correctly understood what happened if they deleted a Facebook account” (Hengstler, 2013, p. 3). This reinforces the need to evaluate both the benefits and risks when using social media for learning, and it seems to support Howard Rheingold’s stance that ‘network awareness’ is an important twenty-first century literacy (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011, p. 204). Thus, educators (or district designates) need to have a firm grasp of social media and networking...and of all that digital literacy encompasses.
Lankshear and Knobel (2011) point out that a primary tenet of social network theory is the placement of the individual at the center of his/her networks. They also delineate between the order resulting from ‘social networks’, and the order resulting from ‘social groups’ or ‘community’. Lanshear and Knobel (2011) quote, “Wellman (2001: 227) claims that ‘we find community in networks, not groups’, and that while we ‘often view the world in terms of groups’, people nonetheless, ‘function in networks’. Lankshear and Knobel (2011) go on to differentiate between ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ ties within networks (strong ties forming from regular contact, and weak ties from less regular contact), and they note that loosely knit networks - now prevalent due to technological advances and the affordances of the web - are becoming increasingly important. It is discussed that weak ties are important for accessing new ideas and information, and thus they are necessary for stimulating innovation. As an educator, this is especially relevant when considering ways to facilitate student learning of 21st century skills and competencies.
Julia Hengstler (2013) notes there are several key expectations for participants (users) of the ‘social web’, which include contributing value, engaging directly, and monitoring activity in order to respond to the network (audience). She describes a variety of social media tools, and cites some concerning statistics regarding participants’ understanding (or lack thereof) of privacy settings. For example, only “15% correctly understood what happened if they deleted a Facebook account” (Hengstler, 2013, p. 3). This reinforces the need to evaluate both the benefits and risks when using social media for learning, and it seems to support Howard Rheingold’s stance that ‘network awareness’ is an important twenty-first century literacy (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011, p. 204). Thus, educators (or district designates) need to have a firm grasp of social media and networking...and of all that digital literacy encompasses.
References:
Hengstler, J. (2013). Welcome to the Social Web. Social Media Overview 2013.pdf
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New Literacies: Everyday Practices And Social Learning: Everyday Practices and
Social Learning. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). Retrieved from https://www2.viu.ca/library/
Rheingold, H. (2010). Attention, and Other 21st-Century Social Media Literacies. Educause Review, 45(5), 14. Retrieved September
12, 2015, from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2010/10/attention-and-other-21stcentury-social-media-literacies
Wellman, B. (2001). Physical place and cyberplace: The rise of personalized networking. International journal of urban and regional
research, 25(2), 227-252. Retrieved September 11, 2015, from
http://www.itu.dk/~khhp/speciale/videnskabelige%20artikler/Wellman_2001%20-%20%20personalized%20networking.pdf
Hengstler, J. (2013). Welcome to the Social Web. Social Media Overview 2013.pdf
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New Literacies: Everyday Practices And Social Learning: Everyday Practices and
Social Learning. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). Retrieved from https://www2.viu.ca/library/
Rheingold, H. (2010). Attention, and Other 21st-Century Social Media Literacies. Educause Review, 45(5), 14. Retrieved September
12, 2015, from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2010/10/attention-and-other-21stcentury-social-media-literacies
Wellman, B. (2001). Physical place and cyberplace: The rise of personalized networking. International journal of urban and regional
research, 25(2), 227-252. Retrieved September 11, 2015, from
http://www.itu.dk/~khhp/speciale/videnskabelige%20artikler/Wellman_2001%20-%20%20personalized%20networking.pdf