Mistaken Goal: Where Higher Education & Technology Meet

Yesterday’s “The Facebook Phenomenon” panel discussion presented by North Carolina State University was fantastic! The webcast and related materials are available online for those who missed it. They’ve also started a Facebook group sharing the name of the discussion for those interested in continuing the discussion in Facebook itself.

The discussion and the supporting materials were excellently organized and we should all thank NCSU staff for their generous work in providing this professional development opportunity. The discussion was good and the question-and-answer session was great. However, I was a bit disappointed by some of the answers (or lack thereof). On one hand, I (like many others, I am sure) was hoping that the panel would have answers to all of our questions; they didn’t. On the other hand, it’s comforting (and a tiny bit disappointing) that we’re all searching for answers and almost all of us are in the same place. That the panelists could not answer many questions posed is not indicative of ignorance on the part of the panelists. They were asked tough questions about an emerging phenomenon and I don’t think that anyone could have answered many of the questions.

The most disappointing aspect of the panel was the consistent reference to personal anecdotes without sufficient reference to applicable research. I offer this criticism as a student affairs professional looking inward at his own profession and thus this criticism is aimed less at this particular panel or its participants and more at the profession as a whole. Fred Stutzman, of course, had his own research to draw upon but even much of that has been limited to the students at his institution. The one specific reference I recall to more wide-ranging research was Sarah Noell’s reference to a Pew Internet & American Life Project study of teen Internet use. As I’ve discussed before, there appears to be a real need to bridge the gap between researchers who are active in this field and student affairs practitioners and administrators. It’s great that many people were introduced to Fred’s research but what about boyd, Ellison, and other researchers’ work in this and very closely related fields? (I note that the list of resources on NCSU’s website is still growing; they appear to be finding more of this work and posting links to it which is great!)

The administrators on the panel didn’t seem to speak much about the ethics of administrators viewing Facebook profiles. They certainly have the legal right but they seemed to completely brush off ethical and privacy concerns. Such an apparently casual dismissal of a very serious concern in the minds of many students seems to be a bit callous and out-of-touch with student culture. It’s a difficult subject that merits more consideration and a more considered and sensitive approach than “we’re legally allowed to do it and that’s that.”

There also appeared to be an unchallenged assumption that 95%+ student are using Facebook. Although Fred’s research supports that finding for the groups he has studied, other studies have found lower rates of participation. In particular, the ECAR’s 2006 Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, which surveyed nearly 29,000 students at 96 different institutions, found that “more than 70% [of respondents] use social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook.” Since there appears to be a significant range in the research, uncritical acceptance of one set of findings strikes me as a bit odd.

As noted by Sarah Stein, institutional policies should encompass students, faculty, and staff. Although that sounds obvious, it’s a point that I tend to forget or gloss over. Each of these constituents has a different purpose for wanting to use and interact with others using Facebook and similar services. While I’m sure that there are similarities between these groups’ uses and intents there are obviously many differences, not the least of which are the different legal and ethical issues involved. For example, some of the panelists briefly discussed FERPA and the difference between institutions posting students’ personal information on Facebook (as apparently happened when a professor tried to place some course-related materials on Facebook) and students posting their own personal information.

Some specific reactions to or notes about the panelists’ opening remarks (I am omitting Fred Stutzman as I have referenced and will certainly continue to write about his work; his opening remarks were a summary of his work):

• Sarah Noell expects Facebook to develop increasing granularity in its privacy controls in the future as it “matures.” I think that is a valid opinion and I expect that Facebook will continue to explore that area but I don’t know if it will yield much fruit; increased granularity would significantly increase complexity. At a certain point, and I don’t know where that tipping point is, the complexity of a tool outweighs its functionality. Privacy controls in a system that attempts to mimic or match offline social interactions, boundaries, contexts, etc. can very quickly grow too complex to be understood or used.
• Paul Cousins seemed to indicate that he believes that Facebook is used primarily to forge new connections. I could be mistaken in my understanding of his perception but I have encountered that perception in other student affairs professionals. This perception is counter to some research (Ellison and Vanden Boogart jump to mind) that shows that Facebook is typically used to reinforce existing relationships. This point was one to which panelists returned a few times so I don’t know exactly how closely the perceptions match the published research.
• Sarah Stein mentioned ETS’ new Information and Communication Technology Literacy Assessment as evidence of students’ lack of technical and information literacy. While I agree with her general point, I’m not sure that ETS’ test is the best evidence as its methodology was soundly and fairly criticized. Dr. Stein also mentioned GIS and the integration of spatial location with social networking as a future development but did not mention the obvious (to me) privacy concerns raised by such integration. Another panelist (Fred, I think) mentioned that MIT is already actively exploring this concept.
• Whil Plavis, the lone student on the panel, briefly discussed students who choose to protect their privacy by not using Facebook. Dr. Stein later echoed this sentiment by reminding the audience that there are and always will be people who opt out of such systems.

In my opinion, the lengthy question and answer that followed the opening remarks was the most informative and enjoyable part of the discussion. The organizers of the panel very wisely chose to allot the majority of the time to this portion of the discussion and were very adept at alternating between questions from the local, physical audience and the virtual audience.

Some of the questions included:

• Are there (legal) discrimination issues if potential employers view someone’s profile early in the hiring process? I don’t think any panelist offered a good answer to this question. In their defense, it’s really a specific legal question and I am not sure if any of the panelists were qualified to speak about laws related to employment and discrimination. It’s a great question and definitely the kind of question we should be asking ourselves and one another!
• A concerned parent in audience who regularly “checks out” her daughter’s online information (which is exactly what she should be doing and what many parents are not doing) asked: Are local public schools conducting education in this area? Sarah Stein replied “I don’t know” but that we should find out. She went on to stress that we should “stop making assumptions” about others’ technical literacy, an excellent point that I wish more people understood and proselytized
• Another concerned mother asked: Do students who post personal and potentially dangerous information about location receive encouragement or discouragement from their friends? Whil responded that yes, there is some peer pressure associated with Facebook and personal information posted on it. He illustrated this with an anecdote about his younger brother whom Whil cautioned to “tone down” the personal information shared on his Facebook account.
• A psychologist concerned with the level of personal contact that can achieved online asked: Are we losing skills in “[interpersonal relationships]?” Sarah Stein replied that previous and ongoing CMC research does not support such a conclusion. She also discussed a notion of “blended lives” that has persisted for many years where we our social lives are a mix of relationships and interactions conducted via many media. Whil noted that his profile is not for advertising to people but it’s there for those who want to find it. With respect to losing interpersonal skills, Whil noted that students often use Facebook as a convenient way to setup meetings and events.
• Leslie Dare, the panel moderator, noted that Facebook privacy settings must be set by the user. Sarah Noell then asked, “Who is educating people about those features?”
• What’s the future of Facebook? Is it a fad? Are we (universities) properly equipped to deal with it? Sarah Stein opined that Facebook might not stick around but social networking will. Fred agreed that Facebook might not stay but social networks will as they provide “high utility” and a “time saver tool.”
• Are there long term issues about boundaries? Personal vs. impersonal vs. too much information (TMI)? Sarah Stein noted that this isn’t a new concern. Paul, however, countered that he believes that students are exchanging “intimacy for efficiency.” Fred parried with an assertion that we are social beings and he doesn’t worry about us losing our social networks. For example, Facebook connections are usually initiated offline. Leslie noted that some use Facebook to express and share grief
• How do we educate parents about the risks? Sarah Noell indicated that NCSU did not mention this topic in the previous parent orientation but that information is on their website. It’s a difficult topic to address since many parents don’t know anything about it. Sarah Stein shared her hope that the presentation and education will be balanced (positive and negative) like this panel discussion.

Comments(1)

Information literacy is a concept that has come up several times in recent news and discussions in my life. As previously noted, it’s a topic that I find not only inherently interesting but the process by which it has become a topic of national concern and interest is itself very interesting and potentially informative even to those not interested in the topic.

The American Library Association’s Presidential Committee on Information Literacy: Final Report, issued in 1989, defines information literacy as the ability to “recognize when information is needed and…locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information.” These skills have become increasingly important as more information in more formats have become available; some have even connected information literacy to democracy by arguing that for voters to be informed they must be information literate. It is worth noting that these concerns (a) generally mirror the larger concerns of liberal education as infusing learners with a broad knowledge base and the ability to seek out, identify, and integrate knowledge on one’s own and (b) predate the World Wide Web and consumer use and knowledge of the Internet (the ALA formed their Presidential Commission on Information Literacy in 1987; Berners-Lee did not invent the critical parts of the World Wide Web until the very early 90s).

There are definitely ties between technical literacy and information literacy but the two concepts are distinct. Some mistakenly conflate the two skillsets as they are often intertwined both as concepts and in how the concepts are taught and evaluated. To some extent that is understandable as the concepts are often taught in the same class and closely tied together in their presentation to students and patrons. Several examples of how the concepts are intertwined can be found in Ann Grafstein’s recently-published and very excellent article “Information Literacy and Technology: An Examination of Some Issues” in the current (Vol. 7, No. 1) issue of portal: Libraries and the Academy. That the concepts are closely related, however, in no way changes that they are distinct.

As already mentioned, I am fascinated not only by the concept of information literacy but also the way it has become a topic of national concern and interest. I don’t know all that I want to know about how this evolution came about but I really want to know more as I feel there could be very valuable lessons for others. For example, the concept of technical literacy has not gained near as much traction or attention as information literacy despite their very close ties. As already noted, the ALA has for nearly two decades invested some of their resources in defining information literacy. ETS, the company that administers tests such as the SAT and GRE, has created an ICT Literacy Assessment that purports to measure test-takers’ “ability to use digital technology, communication tools and networks appropriately to solve information problems in order to function in an information society.” Some of the work funded by The MacArthur Foundation’s Digital Media, Learning & Education initiative focuses on media literacy, a subset of information literacy.

Why has information literacy become the focus of so much attention while other skillsets have not? It may be that those concerned about information literacy have been that much more organized and methodical; not only I am hard pressed to think of an organization with the resources and clout of the ALA in the technology sector but technologists do not have near as uniform a prepatory and professional path as librarians. I don’t think that we can honestly say that the time is ripe for information literacy but not for technical literacy, particularly as we continue to worry about our children’s safety on the Internet (even if those worries are largely unfounded). It may be that information literacy is a very general concept with extremely broad application whereas technical literacy is (arguably) much more narrow in focus and application; information literacy concepts will serve you for a lifetime whereas some technical literacy concepts may live for only a few years.

Let’s close this post with some links to recent EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative documents and projects that help underscore (a) the continuing importance and evolution of information literacy and (b) the ties between information literacy and technical literacy:

• Ensuring the Net Generation Is Net Savvy
• Getting Past Google: Perspectives on Information Literacy from the Millennial Mind
• How Choice, Co-Creation, and Culture Are Changing What It Means to Be Net Savv

(Note how these documents tie together not only concepts mentioned in this post – information literacy, technical literacy, and even media literacy – but also other concepts discussed in previous posts that discuss characteristics of the current generation of traditional undergraduates.)

Comments(1)

Cdigix, one of the major players in the higher education online entertainment service field, has joined Internet2. Napster and Ruckus are already members. This announcement (that doesn’t seem to be anywhere on their website, including their press release section) is one of two big announcements expected from Cdigix and Ruckus in the coming weeks. Their second announcement has already been forwarded to the institutions that already subscribe to Cdigix’s services and it could be pretty big when they make it public.

Let’s focus a bit on their I2 membership. With Cdigix joining Ruckus and Napster as Corporate Members of I2 that leaves Real as the only significant player in the higher ed sector sitting on the outside. It’s also curious that Apple hasn’t joined but I think it’s been clear that they really aren’t aiming iTunes at this particular market right now. I also have to wonder if these companies’ presence in I2 really means anything. Is this just a status move (“Look at us – we’re on the Internet 2!”)? Does this simply allow them more access to higher ed institutions in a different and more exclusive venue? Or are there real technical advances that we should expect to come from these companies now that they’re in the I2 club?

I understand why for-profit corporations are allowed to join I2 as they can often contribute a ton of experience and knowledge. But as an I2 outsider I can’t help but wonder how political some of these memberships are (the RIAA and MPAA are members) and just how much some of these groups can and do really contribute. I know that politics matter but that doesn’t lessen my distaste for them.

Update: The second announcement, this time from Ruckus, has been released: they’re opening up the music part of their service to all American college and university students.

Update 2: The New York Times has chimed in on Ruckus’ latest move.

Comments(2)

The Minnesota Daily has conducted a survey of University of Minnesota students in which they asked students about Internet Use, Social Networking Websites and Associated Privacy Issues, Internet Identity, Internet Safety and Data Privacy, and The Internet and Participation. They have published at least one news story about the survey as well as some of the methodological details of the survey. While they don’t appear to have published the survey instrument, the published methodology seems to be relatively sound (as it should be since they contracted with the university’s Department of Survey Research). The “report” seems to be missing some details and sections (no “Discussion” section???); there are multiple versions of the report on their website, each longer than the last, so maybe they are publishing drafts of the report as they become available…?

A few of the notable findings:

• Although nearly 1/3 of the respondents believed that “their Internet activities are anonymous….older participants were less likely to believe their Internet activities are anonymous.”
• 85% of respondents have visited a social networking website and 73% are a member of at least one site with 63% members of Facebook, 32% members of MySpace, and 27% members of both.
• When asked if it was a violation of privacy for employers or university administrators to find out more about or investigate students by viewing profiles and information on social networking sites, respondents’ opinions were split. However, most respondents do not view police using social networking sites to investigate crimes as a violation of privacy.
• Just over half of respondents “trust online companies and organizations to keep information about them private,” nearly one quarter of respondents “say they feel safe making purchases online,” and 80% of respondents “are concerned that someone could steal their identity using personal information found on the Internet.”
• 75% of respondents “say they would rather email a professor or TA than go to their office hours,” just over one-third believe that responding to e-mail “takes up too much of [their] time,” and nearly 40% would “prefer to confront someone about a problem via email rather than in person.”

The news article published by The Minnesota Daily touches on some of these findings. At least one of the quotes printed in the article, however, mentions an issue not explored in the survey itself. Specifically, an English professor interviewed for the article says, “Students send these e-mails in a very casual manner….They don’t put a lot of reflection into composing their questions or comments and typically the tone that students assume in e-mails is more appropriate to, say, corresponding with a friend than a professor.” Without analyzing additional research, I don’t know whether this is a issue unique to or more prevalent in younger persons; my feeling is that it is an issue that is more closely linked to those who use the medium regardless of age.

The Chronicle of Higher Education‘s The Wired Campus picked up this story (but not the survey report). Perhaps it’s a natural phenomenon that the “truths” in the survey report become changed and diluted as the information is passed from story to story (from the survey report to the Minnesota Daily article to the The Wired Campus…to this blog???) much like the childhood “Telephone Game.” The main message that seems to come across in The Wired Campus’ post is a dichotomy between “electronic communication” vs. “in-person communication.” Like many dichotomies, this one is false. I think the main problem is that the general question asking “would [you] rather email a professor or TA than go to their office hours?” lacks context. For what hypothetical purpose are the students being asked to email or visit the TA or professor? There may be a significant difference between a simple question and a more complex one. Other research has found that students do discern between media so perhaps some of them are simply choosing the appropriate medium to ask many questions.

The Daily Minnesota article notes a generational gap that extends not only between students and faculty but also older and younger faculty. Dr. Augst, a professor quoted several times by the Daily Minnesota who seems to have been interviewed as a representative of the older faculty, asserts that “any question can be more effectively answered in person.” Although I sympathize with his point of view I do not agree. Until I begin recording all conversations and transcribing them so I can later reproduce them on demand and search and sort them, e-mail will remain my medium of choice for some interactions.

In summary, many of the findings of this survey and the opinions expressed in the article are similar to those in other research. It’s clear that there are opinions and attitudes that change over time, either with experience or maturation, including realistic views of security and anonymity. However, there are also opinions and attitudes that may not change over time with choice of medium being a prominent example. While some of these opinions and attitudes are clearly incorrect and do not reflect reality (no matter how strongly you believe, you will not “believe” yourself into being secure or anonymous) others are just subjective opinions that are equally as valid as others.

Comments(1)

For nearly two years, The Chronicle of Higher Education has been posting small technology-related news stories, commentary, and observation in “The Wired Campus.” Like the Chronicle’s employment section, the content in The Wired Campus is free to subscribers and non-subscribers alike. If you’re really plugged into technology news then it’s not very often that you’ll read something brand new on The Wired Campus. But for those who are not technology news junkies, it’s a good service. They usually do a good job of catching things and putting their own, unique higher ed spin on news. I’m subscribed to their RSS feed and read new stories as they are published and I’m a more knowledgeable professional for doing so. And they allow readers to comment on each story – how cool!

But I’d like to take a minute to poke lighthearted fun at Brock Read, Andrea Foster, and the rest of the Chronicle staff for some of the stories they publish in The Wired Campus. Two relatively-recent stories have made me chuckle and ask myself, “This is news?” The first story tells us that students are unhappy when the campus or residence hall wireless network when it doesn’t work. The second story lets us know that students like free music (one could actually read a lot more into this particular story but that would ruin our fun right now). Now you know why I subtitled this post “News of the Obvious.” :)

(Lest someone take this post too seriously: Yes, I completely understand and embrace the value of research or news that validates commonly-held conceptions and ideas. I also know that not every news story is going to win a Pulitzer. Sheesh – let a man have some fun on a Sunday night!)

Comments(0)

Two of the Pew research projects have recently released research documents.

The first document, a memo about ongoing research conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, is entitled “Social Networking Websites and Teens: An Overview.” In the study, the researchers found that “more than half (55%) of all online American youths ages 12-17 use online social networking sites…. [O]lder teens, particularly girls, are more likely to use these sites. For girls, social networking sites are primarily places to reinforce pre-existing friendships; for boys, the networks also provide opportunities for flirting and making new friends.” Rather than attempting to summarize this document myself, I defer to others more experienced in this field than I who have already produced excellent summaries and observations.

The second document is a report from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press entitled “How Young People View Their Lives, Futures and Politics: A Portrait of ‘Generation Next.’” The summary of findings tells us that “the generation that came of age in the shadow of Sept. 11 shares the characteristics of other generations of young adults. They are generally happy with their lives and optimistic about their futures. Moreover, Gen Nexters feel that educational and job opportunities are better for them today than for the previous generation. At the same time, many of their attitudes and priorities reflect a limited set of life experiences. Marriage, children and an established career remain in the future for most of those in Generation Next.” There are certainly many findings that will be of interest to educators and student affairs professionals.

Among the interesting findings about “Generation Next” is that “about half say they sent or received a text message over the phone in the past day, approximately double the proportion of those ages 26-40.” Much of the research I have read has indicated that Americans have been slow to take up text messaging. I think it’s safe to say that, at least for the younger generations, this generalization is no longer true. In fact, it’s clear that text messaging is now in the mainstream for American youths.

One particular statement with which I take issue is that “they are the ‘Look at Me’ generation.” The researchers conclude this from their finding that “a majority of Gen Nexters have used…social networking sites, and more than four-in-ten have created a personal profile.” I certainly don’t dispute the finding. I do, however, dispute the characterization that implies narcissism and attention-seeking as the motivation for employing these tools. The researchers’ characterization of these tools reveals either a bias or a shallow understanding of these tools. It’s not that people who use those tools are necessarily seeking attention but that the nature of the tools requires one to explicitly identify yourself and a significant amount of information about yourself. Further, for the age group we are discussing these tools have reached a “critical mass” in that even those who don’t really care for the tools often find themselves using them.

Both of these documents are interesting and directly applicable for college and university administrators and educators, particularly the “Generation Next” report. It helps cut through the misconceptions and anecdotes to give us a scholarly and extremely interesting view of the current generation of American youths. As the working definition of Generation Next used by these researchers includes “those Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 years old,” these young people are the current generation of undergraduates. It’s essential to understand them not only as college and university students but also as Americans who are entering the workforce and voting booths.

Comments(0)

Two new surveys have been recently initiated by student affairs and IT researchers.

First is a survey of student IT worker pay conducted by David Stack of UW–Milwaukee and AJ Kelton of Montclair State University. More information, including a link to the survey and information about those conducting the survey, can be found in AJ’s posting to his EDUCAUSE Blog. There are other sources of data about student IT employee pay and compensation but this survey is attempting to discover differences between how central IT and distributed departments compensate student IT employees differently.

Second is a survey of “[student affairs professionals' and their] university’s experiences (or lack of), whether formally or informally, with online social networks.” The survey is being conducted by Dr. Leigh Anne Howard of the University of Southern Indiana and Dr. Tamara L. Wandel of the University of Evansville who are “examining how student affairs professionals think about and/or utilize online networks as a communication tool to connect with students and alumni.” The survey was announced to the membership of the ACPA this week.

I’ve corresponded with the authors of both of these surveys and I believe that both of the surveys are very interesting and should produce some wonderful results. If you are in the sample for either of these surveys, please participate!

Comments(0)

In the new issue of the NASPA Journal is an article from Drs. Jennifer Christie Siemens and Steven W. Kopp entitled “Teaching Ethical Copyright Behavior: Assessing the Effects of a University-Sponsored Computing Ethics Program.” In summary, this article reports that persistent educational efforts have a positive effect on the self-reported behaviors and beliefs of the surveyed undergraduate college students.

The article reports on the results of a broad educational program at a private institution in the Midwest. Students in a freshman introductory class (similar to a Freshman Year Experience class or other “college 101″ classes) were exposed to different instructional techniques “to address the issue of ethical use of copyrighted Internet content.” When the results of a web-based survey of the students were analyzed, the most effective efforts were those that utilized multiple techniques. No single technique performed better than any other. Moreoever, there were significant differences between men and women: “males were significantly less likely to agree with the policy…comply with the policy… [and] perceived downloading copyrighted music…and other content…to be significantly more ethical compared to female respondents.”

In a statement familiar to both student affairs administrators and IT professionals, the researchers tell us that “both technologies and laws are quickly ignored or evaded by [students] and…some other approach may be necessary to influence behavior.” In other words, institutions must create and enforce policies and educate students about those policies if they want to change this behavior. More specifically, neither lawsuits against a very, very few students nor technological attempts to enforce behavior have been successful. To the best of my knowledge, the only technology that appears to actually be effective is to simply limit the amount of bandwidth a particular student can utilize. Nearly any other technology can be easily bypassed by savvy students, steps on fair use rights, or both. Of course, one could also just make it someone else’s problem.
It’s interesting to note that both of these researchers are marketing faculty. It is my observation that most of the relevant research into technology issues in which student affairs and university administrators may be interested is coming out of faculty from departments or disciplines other than higher education. Much of the research in which I have been most interested has come from communications faculty. More on my thoughts in this phenomenon can be found in an older post.

Kudos to these researchers for performing this critical research! They are absolutely right when they assert that despite the growing presence of these programs, “there has been little published research on the effectiveness of university-sponsored educational programs in curbing illegal downloading behavior on college campuses. Due to the expense of implementing such programs, it is important to assess their effectiveness.” This is particularly important as Congress continues to press this issue and potentially ineffective solutions in an effort to appease their constituents.

As always, there is much more of interest in the article and I encourage you to read it. I don’t know how widely available the NASPA Journal is in the common journal databases but I’m sure you can obtain the article via InterLibrary Loan if you are not a NASPA member or your institution does not have a subscription.

Comments(0)

There has been, and continues to be, much discussion about online privacy in the context of youths and their use of social networking sites. Last year, this discussion led the House of Representatives to pass an ill-considered law in an effort to limit youths’ uncensored and unfiltered access to social networking sites (the bill was not voted on by the Senate and must be reintroduced in both houses of the 110th Congress). I don’t know if the paranoia is beginning to wear off but the research has been slowly building and, of course, it’s contrary to the common media portrayal.

First, let’s take a look at the assertion that the Internet, specifically MySpace, is full of pedophiles and criminals who prey on youth. Dr. Larry D. Rosen of California State University, Dominguez Hills has conducted research into this asserted phenomenon and found it largely to be overblown. I’m not going to repeat Larry’s but his work can be summarized as “there are much fewer criminals on the Internet preying on our children in MySpace than we believe, youth almost universally ‘blow off’ and ignore the few online solicitations or harassment they encounter, and parents need to play a stronger role in their children’s online lives” (my words, not his). That so many media sources picked up this research but still get the story wrong is quite disappointing.

Next, let’s look at research into how youth view online privacy. Contemporary beliefs are that youths, including young adults, have little understanding of online privacy and are apt to reveal personal information at the drop of a hat with potentially disastrous consequences (kidnapping, sexual assault, loss of a job or potential job, removal from school, etc.). We’ve discussed this perception before and now there is some more research that adds to the conversation. Justin Patchin, assistant professor of criminal justice at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire and Sameer Hinduja, criminology professor at Florida Atlantic University, conducted research into adolescents’ use of MySpace that shows that “an overwhelming majority of adolescents are using the site responsibly.”

Now, let’s briefly compare these two two research efforts. Dr. Rosen’s research combined data from multiple sources and appears to utilize more qualitative data, including surveys of over 200 child-parent pairs. Drs. Patchin and Hinduja, on the other hand, reviewed the MySpace profiles of nearly 2,500 adolescent MySpace users. One interesting limitation from which both efforts suffer is that their adolescent respondents were self-reported as the surveys were conducted online or via telephone; we know there are problems with relying on MySpace users’ self-reported age. On the whole, the two efforts are very complementary and fill in different gaps in our knowledge. It is very interesting to see how different media are spinning the same data from the same researchers very differently. The USA Today story about Patchin and Hinduja’s research is entitled “Most teens are responsible online, study shows” and seems to stress that teens’ behavior is safe whereas the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire’s news release “Researchers Find Most Teens Limit Personal Information on MySpace, But Some Youth Still at Risk” seems to stress the negative aspects of the story. I would have expected the viewpoints of the two sources to be reversed (but maybe it’s-all-okay stories from university researchers don’t help secure further research funding…).

I would like to see more qualitative data to explain the results from Patchin and Hinduja’s research as that seems to be a pretty big shortcoming in their methodology. More specifically, I’d like to know more about why these youths exhibit safe or unsafe behaviors – why are so many teens apt to shrug off sexual propositions? Is it because they’ve learned from the few, horrific incidents (real or imaginary) or is some education effective? What kinds of education are most effective, if any? How do these behaviors change over time (both within the particular age-group and as the same age-group grows older)?

In any case, I hope these researchers will continue to update their websites as they conduct more research or further explore the data. Dr. Larry Rosen’s webpage is at http://www.csudh.edu/psych/lrosen.htm and Drs. Patchin and Hinduja maintain Cyberbullying.us, an interesting website with information about “online bullying.”

I particularly like how Larry closed one of his research papers. Before issuing one last call for parental awareness and action, he reminds us that “For the most part, the kids really are ‘alright.’”

Comments(2)

I’m sure that most student affairs professionals and indeed most Americans have some passing familiarity with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Together with other related state and federal laws, particularly Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, these are the laws that require things like sloped roadside curbs, doors and hallways wide enough for wheelchairs, and elevators and ramps.

Fewer people, including many who work with computers and create webpages, are aware of the laws and legal rulings that govern web accessibility. Foremost among them are Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. This law is essentially a codification of the World Wide Web Consortium‘s (W3C) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. Although this law only applies to federal agencies, many states have passed similar or identical laws. Further, there is a small but growing body of case law that indicates that these laws may be applicable even to private corporations’ websites.

I write this post for two reasons. First, I am alarmed by my own experiences with webpage development and application procurement in higher education in that accessibility. Despite being a legal mandate for many institutions and a moral mandate for all institutions, accessibility is not even on the radar screen. It’s not a low priority – it’s not a priority at all. I understand that some of the issues may appear complicated but for us to make no effort whatsoever is shameless and unethical. I place some of the blame on the vendors who continue to ignore the issue (the major projects in which I’ve helped purchase, configure, and maintain web-based systems left us with no accessibility options unless we developed the systems ourselves; we lacked the resources to develop the systems in-house). That, of course, is a chicken-and-the-egg scenario because the vendors are naturally unwilling to expend resources on a “feature” that their clients obviously don’t care about. In my mind, educators’ lack of concern for online accessibility is an ethical and moral disconnect and I remain disappointed that many of those who are very quick to recognize physical issues that will affect disabled persons are so ignorant of or unwilling to address online issues. I’m not asking for everyone to become WAI experts but it’s perfectly reasonable for people to be aware of the issues and seek the advice and input of experts.

The second reason I raise this issue is as an opportunity to share a fascinating link. As discussed above, we have collectively done a very poor job of serving handicapped populations. However, let’s not ever underestimate the ability of people to overcome difficulties or their ability to repurpose tools to serve their own needs. The link above discusses the phenomenon of deaf persons using web cameras to communicate with one another using sign language. Not only does audio present an obvious difficulty for deaf persons but written content also presents difficulties; written English is a phonic language that depends on understanding how the words are pronounced aloud. In any case, it’s incredibly awesome to see deaf and hard-of-hearing persons using these technologies in ways that most of us have never considered. They’re using the Internet to do what so many of us use it to do: communicate with one another.  They’re doing it on their own in their own language and that’s incredibly empowering.

Comments(4)