Mistaken Goal: Where Student Affairs & Technology Meet

I’m doing at least three things with this blog post:

1. Participating in the NASPA Tech Tools program that asks participants to try out Flickr by creating an account and uploading a photo.
2. Discussing my current research.
3. Providing some hard-to-find information about the use of a digital camera and a copy stand to copy historical documents.

This is a photo of my new portable copy stand. The photo was uploaded to Flickr and it tagged with NASPATechTools; I hope others participating in the Tech Tools program will follow suit and upload some interesting photos.

This device is a copy stand. I would have liked to take the photo with the camera attached to the stand but I had to use the camera to take the photo. The stand that allows me to attach my new camera so the lens faces downwards. Why would I want to do that? The answer lies in the name of the stand - copy stand. I place documents on the table below the camera and take high quality photos of them. More on the specifics in a bit.

But let’s ask “why would I want to do that?” again: Why would I want a portable copy stand?  It’s so I can more easily and quickly conduct some of my current research. I have two strands of research that both focus on locating and analyzing the contents of historical documents. First, I am aiming to discover how American student affairs professionals have used and related to various technologies throughout the history of the profession. One way I’m doing that is by looking through documents in the National Student Affairs Archive at Bowling Green State University. Those documents include program guides from ACPA and NASPA conferences going back to the 1930s and other documents from those organizations related to technology. Second, I am continuing my research into student-used communications and entertainment technologies in American residence halls. To do that, I’m looking through various documents (building design specifications, housing regulations, meeting minutes, etc.) in Bowling Green’s university archives.

If I didn’t have a camera or if the wonderful people at Bowling Green were not letting me use it then I would be (a) carefully poring over each document to fully ingest it, (b) taking many, many notes, and (c) asking the archives staff to copy (probably for a fee) many, many documents. By using my camera to copy documents, I can work much more quickly and, in the long run, cheaply (since I don’t have to pay for copies). I still have to read everything but I am very liberal with what I copy since it’s quick and cheap. Of course, when I say “copy” here I mean “copy for personal research use.” These documents and photos are still copyrighted so I still need to seek permission before I can use these documents for some purposes.

The specific camera I am using is a Canon Powershot S5 IS. I could probably use a cheaper camera but I am very ignorant of photography. One reason I like this camera is that flash must be physically flipped up before it will work. That means that I can’t accidentally forget to turn the flash off before using it to take photos of old documents. Just as important, like many Canon cameras this one came with a USB cable and software that allows me to control the camera using my laptop. Among other things, that eliminates any possibility of me jiggling the camera when I press the button to take photos. The software also automatically sends the photos to my laptop so I can take as many as my hard drive will hold.

It’s not a perfect system. First, being unable to use a flash or external lights means that I am forced to rely on the light in the room. Second, I haven’t begun to figure out all of the settings and options and I know there is some automatic setting that is fouling up the color of the document photos. That’s okay because (a) I can correct that afterwards and (b) it’s not important to get the color correct when I just want to copy a text document.

The image to the right is a sample image. It’s a page from the Report of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the American College Personnel Association; the meeting was held in Atlantic City on February 20-24, 1935. You can click on the image to view it full size. The only edit I made to this image was to rotate it 180 degrees and crop it. You can’t see the discoloration that I think is being introduced by some automatic setting in the software in this particular image as the pages in this book are already very yellowed with age.  But you can see the quality of the image and how it compares to a photocopy or scan.

With respect to content, this document is of interest to me because of the presentation of original research by AT&T. There are several examples in the early ACPA conferences where representatives from giant corporations - AT&T, General Electric, Westinghouse, and American Steel - gave presentations or read papers. I don’t yet know what to make of those presentations and papers. And that is part of the point: Because it was quick, easy, and cheap, I was able to copy this document so I and file it away so I can read it over in more detail later and continue to think about it and process what it might mean. Without my camera, I would have to weigh whether it would be worth the cost and time to either take very detailed notes or request this document be copied.

I’m finding all sorts of cool things in the National Student Affairs Archives: technology-related presentations from the early 1960s, ACPA and NASPA task forces and ad hoc organizations formed to analyze technology and dissolved within the space of a few years, and the sad story of a comprehensive student affairs information database system jointly created and funded (and then killed) by ACPA and NASPA in the early 1980s. I look forward to being able to digest all of this, make sense of it, and share it with everyone.

Comments(0)

Over the course of the next few months, both major student affairs professional organizations will be offering online training/education about technology.

ACPA and ResLife.Net are hosting a three week course titled “Contemporary Technology Issues for Student Affairs Professionals.” It will focus on online social networks, copyright, and administrative efficiency. The program is open to non-members although the price is higher ($150 for regular ACPA Members, $75 for student members, and $175 for non-members). The course sponsored and endorsed by ACPA’s Commission for Housing and Residential Life.

NASPA is presenting a much longer and free program titled “Tech Tools for Student Affairs Professionals.” The eight-week program scheduled during June and July will cover: blogs; photos and images; RSS and newsreaders; tagging and folksnomies; wikis, podcasts, video, and audio; online applications and tools; and social networking. Each topic will be covered using 2-3 blog posts with lively and practical examples and exercises. Participation in this program is free and open to all NASPA members; we plan to open the entire contents of the program to non-members once the program has run its course. We also plan to release the material under a license/copyright that will allow others to reuse the content on their own campuses and in their own organizations. The program is being presented and organized by the NASPA Technology Knowledge Community.

Comments(0)

Although many of my co-workers will be attending ACPA’s Annual Convention next week in Atlanta, I will be staying here in Bloomington to hold down the fort. But I’ve looked at the conference program and it looks quite nice. Each of the past two years, NASPA’s Technology Knowledge Community has compiled a listing of technology-related programs for the NASPA conference. I’m not sure if it would be appropriate to compile such a list for the ACPA conference and place it on the NASPA Web site so here’s a similar list of technology-related programs for any who are lucky enough to attend ACPA’s conference:

•  Maximizing Technology to Engage and Learn about our Students
• Engaging Online Students Through Peer Mentorship
• New Directions for Student Services: Emerging Technologies Enhance Student Engagement
• Is Your Technology Accessible?
• Stress Reduction Skills Online: Using Technology to Promote Student Coping
• Using Excel to Analyze Basic Quantitative Data (ASK Standard #7)

I hope to be able to contact the presenters of these programs in a few weeks after the dust has settled after the conference to get more information from them about their program and how well it was received. If you are planning to attend any of these programs, I’d love to hear from you afterwards, too!

Comments(0)

Three very recent publications in student affairs literature discuss technology:

1. I have a brief article in the current issue of Leadership Exchange, NASPA’s quarterly magazine for senior student affairs officers. The article is entitled “The Offline Challenges of Online Video” (which is a much better title than the one I had for it) and it’s in the Technology Center section. NASPA members can access entire volumes of Leadership Exchange via the NASPA website after logging in. For those who are not NASPA members, here is the article as it was submitted to the editor; it was substantially shortened and the references removed as befitting the type of publication and audience. We were hoping the article would serve as a small promotional or awareness piece for the NASPA Technology Knowledge Community but I think that link got lost in the editorial process.  It’s also worth noting that the article was written before the University of Florida “Don’t taze me bro!” incident that was captured and spread via YouTube.
2. M. Leslie Sadle discusses Facebook in a NASPA NetResults article entitled “Freedom and Responsibility: Teaching Critical Thinking Skills to Facebook Users.” The article is available to NASPA member. If enough people express interest to the author, perhaps he or she will release it in a publicly-available location (when I last published a NetResults article, I was not asked to sign over copyright to NASPA).
3. David M. Eberhardt also discusses Facebook in “Facing up to Facebook” in the current issue of AboutCampus. It’s an ACPA publication that is mailed to all ACPA members and I don’t know if it’s available online.

The problem I have with all three of these articles, including mine, is that they are descriptive and theoretical. We’ve been spending way too much time making predictions and theorizing and far too little time conducting the necessary research to see if our predictions and theories hold water. That’s the primary reason I quit my full-time job to return to school full-time and earn a PhD: to stop guessing and waving my hands in the air and start conducting research so I can start saying something with some level of assuredness. I acknowledge and embrace the necessary role played by these and similar articles but I have a burning desire and need to move beyond them to formal experimentation and observation. Now I just need to make the time, money, and patience to follow through…

Comments(0)

The final session I attended at the 2007 ACPA/NASPA Joint Meeting was entitled “Leading the Way in Developing Plans, Integrating Student Learning, Learning Outcomes, and Technology.” The session was presented by Gal Cole-Avent and Diane Cooper of the University of Georgia.

The basis for their presentation was a small study done at UGA analyzing one (perhaps two - poor notetaking on my part) professor’s use of a listserv to communicate with 6 students before they arrived on campus. Although the group studied was very small, the findings seem to make sense and are consistent with my own knowledge and experiences:

• Convenience was cited as a huge factor in the use of the medium although it’s unclear (either in my notes or from the research) if the convenience is specifically tied to the listserv medium or more generally linked with computer mediated communication tools
• That the students were able to communicate with persons on the UGA campus before arriving helped them transition to the campus by reducing the perceived size of the institution
• Similarly, the communications helped build a greater sense of community
• The use of e-mail (via a listserv) fit well with students’ perception of e-mail as a means of communication with faculty and staff (compare with instant messaging, social networking services, and SMS that are generally used for communicating with one’s peers)

Among the presenters’ recommendations were that we:

• Identify alternative ways to supplement what is already provided through traditional means
• Decide if technology is appropriate for the proposed use: instruction, programmatic, service objectives, etc.
• Apply measurable outcomes to technology use

The general theme of the presenters’ remarks seemed to be that our use of technology must be intentional. It’s a simple message but an idea that often alludes both those who enjoy technology for its own sake (”We like new toys!”) and those who do not keep up with technology (”Whaddya mean our students and new professionals are using ___? Never heard of it…”).

Once again, Facebook arose in discussion. Novel points in this discussion included the observation that using Facebook allows one to bypass parents and get messages directly to students and the point that “we don’t always go ‘where they’re at.’” The specific example posed by the attendee who rejected the notion of always meeting them “where they’re at” was that of the ubiquitous bars and clubs near campus: we know students go there but unless there is a very compelling reason we don’t “go there.” There are clearly some (legal, social, and cultural) boundaries that we can not and should not cross despite our best intentions and desire to help and communicate with students. Is Facebook on the other side of one of those boundaries? Many students seem to think so and some administrators agree.

That this research focused on the use of a listserv intrigues me for several reasons. First, as noted above, the use of e-mail for faculty to communicate with students fits in very well with students’ perception that e-mail is used primarily to communicate with faculty and staff (e-mail is for “old people” and official correspondence). One of the students even noted that she felt obligated to clean up her grammar and syntax when communicating to the faculty via e-mail. Second, I have personally observed that listservs are very familiar and comfortable technology for many administrators and “old people.” I am subscribed to several listservs where the other subscribers are more than capable of using a different medium such as a bulletin board or a wiki but they choose not to do so. I suspect it has as much to do with their familiarity of listservs and how they function as it does with desirable properties of listservs. I really do think there is something more to be said about the longevity of listservs (and that must include their history and the culture of those who use them) but I’ll not say it here and now.

Finally, there was a brief discussion of some specific tools such as housing management software and student group management software. As one who has previously administered a housing management system, I empathize with my colleagues who perform that task. The world of discipline-specific software is a unique one that is seldom seen outside of those specific areas and I always wonder if those areas are being served well or just well enough.

Comments(0)

The first session I attended on Wednesday, the final day of the ACPA/NASPA Joint Meeting, was entitled “Too Much Information? An Empirical Study of Undergraduate Facebook Profiles.” Daniel Saunders, Shaun Jamieson, and Jordan Hale outlined the results of research they have conducted at the University of Massachusetts-Amhrest.

These gentlemen examined the profiles of 464 UMass undergraduates in March of 2006 to answer questions like: What proportion of UMass undergraduates have a profile? How do those students differ from those without profiles? What proportion of UMass undergraduates with Facebook accounts post contact information? What proportion have positive references to the university? What proportion have positive references to partying, drugs, and alcohol? Some results of their research:

• 82% of UMass-Amherst undergrads had Facebook profiles
• Women were more likely to have a photo of themselves in their “central profile,” one or more photo albums, and more photos (women averaged 81 photos vs. 30 for men); however, men were more likely (21%) than women (8%) to list their phone number
• On-campus residents were more likely (63%) than off-campus residents (23%) to post address information
• Over half (58%) posted some or all of their class schedule
• 7% had central profile photos with a clear photo of alcohol/drinking with White students (71%) more likely to have references to alcohol than students of color (49%) and women (73%) more likely to reference alcohol than men (61%)
• Women had more positive references to UMass-Amherst (2.2 on average) than men (1.5 on average)

As you can see by the research questions and the statistics presented above, there are similarities to a few previous studies. In particular, Jones & Soltren’s 2005 “Facebook: Threats to Privacy” and Watson, Smith, & Driver’s 2006 “Alcohol, Sex and Illegal Activities: An Analysis of Selected Facebook Central Photos in Fifty States” studies explored some similar themes. Jones & Soltren explored the amount and type of information Facebook users shared on their profiles whereas Watson, Smith, & Driver specifically examined the central photos of Facebook profiles. Aside from the obvious differences, the methodology of this research differed from those studies primarily in that it concentrated on students at only one institution. Although the details vary, the general results of this research do not seem to substantially differ from those older studies. In particular, the number of students with clear photos of alcohol or other substances in their central profile photo remained low in this research although the greater proportion of women than men with such photos differed from the Watson, Smith, & Driver study.

There appear to be two interesting facets to this research:

1. The demographic differences - men v. women and White v. students of color - were very interesting. That students of different genders use Facebook differently is no surprise as we already know there are differences in how men and women typically employ CMC tools. The differences between White students and students of color, however, is very interesting and an area that I do not know has been researched or examined thoroughly. During the discussion after the initial presentation, I raised the point that those differences may be attributable to not only race or ethnicity but also socioeconomic status. In other words, students who have had lots of access to the Internet and technology throughout their youth will have a level of comfort and familiarity that those whose access has primarily or exclusively been at school or in libraries do not have. And those students are disproportionately students of color. That’s a very tentative hypothesis and we need to know more about how students of different backgrounds use Facebook and other tools. Further, we should not ever assume that all incoming students or even students already enrolled have the same levels of knowledge, comfort, or access - Digital Divide, Participation Gap, etc.
2. Although we talked about the positive uses for Facebook in other sessions, this is the only research I know of (as if I know of all of it!) that specifically looked for positive mentions in students’ profiles. Further, the presenters stressed that role of Facebook in how institutions’ images are presented and perceived by others. The connection between Facebook and campus attitudes (i.e. social norming) was obvious to me but I missed the connection with institutional image. I suspect I failed to make that seemingly-obvious connection as the medium is completely outside of our control unlike, for example, MySpace where institutions can register an account and control it.

Some other interesting points raised in discussion:

• Has the self-disclosure practiced on (and inherent in) Facebook led to an increase in any negative incidents such as stalking, assault, etc.? Some attendees were of the opinion that harassment had increased but I know of no relevant research.
• As discussed in other sessions, the boundaries (or lack thereof) between students and staff on Facebook were discussed. This appears to be more of an issue for graduate students and new professionals (possibly due simply to their much higher usage rates than older staff). Are we doing enough to educate these young staff members about this tool and how to negotiate this shifting boundary? I suspect that we are not doing enough but I have felt the same about other advances in technology that new professionals bring with them into the profession such as instant messaging. We should be dealing with these issues holistically and intentfully rather than reactively dealing with each particular technology two years after it has been in use.
• One attendee reported on a very successful self-created social networking tool at his campus. There was even some talk on his campus of moving away from e-mail as the official means of communication and using the social networking tool instead.
• Similar to the concern about how students (and others) are portraying our institutions in Facebook, there apparently are some (parents and other non-Facebook users?) who appear to confuse Facebook with an institutionally-controlled and -approved service (”Why did you let him say that about my son/daughter?”). Yikes! I wonder if that was covered in the “Online Parent Course” session that was being presented at the same time by the University of Redlands…

Comments(0)

Another session I attended on Tuesday was one entitled “Shaping the ‘Facebook’ of Higher Education: Teaching Online Street-Smarts During New Student Orientation.” The session was presented by Staci Lynne Hersh and Sara Hinkle of New York University (NYU). Both work in orientation and they discussed how they have begun to integrate Facebook education into their education of both their student orientation leaders and their new students.

Informal surveys have shown that nearly all NYU students have when they show up on campus for their first orientation. The presenters also asserted that registering for and using Facebook is a “coming-of-age experience” but given that Facebook is now open to anyone with an e-mail address I have to wonder if that statement is true. Regardless, a balanced approach in educating students about Facebook and similar tools should be welcome, particularly given the relative newness of these tools and their many unrealized (and potentially long-lasting) implications.

There were two main parts of this session that differed from other Facebook sessions: the concentration on student employees and the educational session offered at NYU’s student orientation.

1. Before offering an educational session during orientation, Hersh and Hinkle knew they had to ensure they were on (or close to) the same page as their student employees. Like most orientation programs, student employees play a huge role in NYU’s orientation program. One aspect of this interaction with the student employees was including clauses in the student employees’ applications and contracts related to their portrayal (profile) in Facebook and other services. Another aspect was an open discussion with the student employees about the institution’s concerns, including students’ privacy, safety, employability, and representation of the institution. Hersh and Hinkle initially experienced resistance from their student employees when broaching this topic similar to the “it’s our space - stay out!” message reported by other presenters and attendees.
2. The educational program offered by NYU took place during orientation and was a voluntary session (presumably offered simultaneously as other sessions). The program features several hands-on activities intended to generate discussion and reflection, including analysis of several real Facebook profiles and an activity designed to make students aware how quickly initial judgments are formed.

As part of this session focused on student employees, including hiring and screening of student employee candidates, part of the discussion centered on how to use Facebook in those processes. The presenters stressed that administrators who are not on Facebook don’t even know what their current student leaders’ profiles look like. Personally, I was not very pleased with the discussion of this particular facet of this issue as there are definitely legal considerations related to this and I’m not sure if many of those making these decisions are equipped and trained to make them; there’s a good reason why the phrase “I Am Not A Lawyer” is used so often in discussions on the Internet that the abbreviation IANAL has entered the common lexicon. One attendee (at this session, I think - I could be getting confused with another Facebook-related session) even raised the point that a student who feels that they did not get a job because they were discriminated against because of something in their profile could sue. That there are often many pieces of information in social networking user profiles that employers are prohibited from using in their employment decisions (age, ethnicity, race, etc.) is an excellent observation and a consideration for anyone who hires students as well as a consideration for students themselves.

While one attendee said that most (perhaps all) problems caused by students’ improper use of Facebook are already covered by existing policies, another attendee (perhaps the same one - my notes are not clear) asked if NYU had a policy prohibiting electronic misrepresentation. It was an excellent question and one that goes beyond Facebook and reaches what seems to me to be a core principle of honesty applicable in many general situations.

Anecdotes shared by the presenters and attendees revealed some inconsistencies and shortcomings in the experience and developmental levels of incoming students. While some students express disbelief about the idea that administrators and employers (i.e. non-peers) can and do view students’ profiles, others share their profiles openly and “friend” administrators in one moment and post incriminating information (such as photos of themselves drinking in the same profile that has their underaged-birthdate) in the next.

Additional observations:

• The common thread of “there are positive uses and we can’t lose sight of them!” ran through this session.
• Are privacy settings really effective in a physically close-knit community (i.e. I surely know someone with whom your friends so I can just ask them to show me your profile)?
• One attendee related how she not only checks her high-school-aged daughter’s Facebook account but she also Googles her daughter to see what other information is out there. She then deals with what she finds in an educational manner rather than a confrontation followed by demands. What a Mom!
• Scribbled at the bottom of my notes on this session: “We’re too damned focused on this one service!”

Comments(0)

The first session I attended on Tuesday morning was entitled “Have You Facebooked Astin Lately? Facebook’s Impact on Student Involvement” and it was presented by Ruth Harper and Greg Heiberger of South Dakota State University (SDSU). Greg actually did all of the presenting and I’m not sure why Ruth was included in the program (Give it more credibility since she has a doctorate? Change of plans since the program proposals are due many months before the conference itself?). Given the title and the implied connection between student development theory and Facebook, I was very excited to attend this session. It met expectations and was a great session.

Heiberger is a Student Activities administrator and Master’s student who has conducted original research at SDSU about students’ use of Facebook in relation to their involvement in student activities. Given his role in Student Activities, Heiberger focused on student involvement and related his Facebook research to Astin’s Involvement Theory and Tinto’s Departure Theory. In short, his concentration seems to be on questions like: “Is involvement increasing or decreasing? Or just changing form?”

His survey had 375 unique respondents and asked 20 questions with the eventual goal of longitudinal research. Some results of the survey include:

• 98% of respondents log in daily (contrast with 31% who use the SDSU MyStateonline portal each day)
• Respondents spend an average of 1-2 hours each day on Facebook
• Respondents log in to Facebook an average of 5 times each day, personal e-mail 3 times per day, and institutional e-mail 1 time per day
• The number of logins positively correlates with the number of student organizations in which respondents reported they are active

This survey included some demographic data such as GPA but did not find a correlation between GPA and time spent on Facebook. However, Vanden Boogart did find a negative correlation between these factors in his research. Why did these two research efforts reach different conclusions? The major differences between them are (a) Vanden Boogart surveyed students at multiple campuses whereas Heiberger focused on one campus and (b) Heiberger performed his research more recently than Vanden Boogart. Therefore it’s possible that the difference is simply the difference between students at different campuses. More interestingly, however, is that we may be seeing an effect similar to that observed in the classic Internet Paradox and Internet Paradox Revisited papers: some negative effects of technology dissipate with time as users become more familiar with it. Like most things, this all requires more research and investigation.

There was a brief digression into a discussion of the role that Facebook and related education may play in the larger area of information literacy. Although the term “information literacy” was not used, it was the topic of conversation and another example of the language barriers between professions (in this case, student affairs and information science). The observation that there is a tie between the focused education in the area of Facebook (which is sometimes too narrowly focused, IMHO) and the larger topic of information literacy is an excellent observation and one deserving of further exploration.

In many discussions about Facebook, the students’ perception that “Facebook is our space” and staff are not welcome was noted. However, one attendee pointed out that this perception may change as new students enter our institutions who have grown up with increased parental and institutional awareness of and presence in Facebook and similar tools.

Other excellent quotes, questions, and examples (all quotes are from Heiberger unless otherwise noted):

• “As responsible administrators, we are obligated to assess and evaluate technology and its effects on student development.”
• “We must either assist in making it a positive developmental experience or risk its effects on our recruitment and retention rates and ultimately higher education’s value.” While I understand the point of this statement, it seems a bit extreme to me. There are many things that students do that we do not and should not “assist” or become involved with for ethical, practical, or legal reasons. Let’s not allow our zeal to care for and assist students to draw us into a parental, controlling, or protective role.
• A student contacted Heiberger via Facebook, and only via Facebook, to inquire about starting a new student organization. This a curious mixture of contexts and crossing of boundaries (explicit student use of a “student-only” medium for performing an administrative function/process).
• Students who “friend” staff members (including student staff members) may find themselves in unique and potentially uncomfortable situations as much of what they do is visible or even broadcast to their friends. One potential benefit, however, is the opportunity for the staff person to model proper behavior. The potential conflict of interest caused by students and staff “friending” one another was raised in multiple sessions throughout the conference, particularly in the context of student staff, graduate students, and new staff.
• Do students (or users in general) use the number of friends, groups, messages, photos, etc. as a measure of status or self-worth? I think there may be some relevant research out there, particularly in the teen/MySpace arena and the placement of one’s Top 8 friends, but I can’t seem to recall the exact article(s)…
• Does any institution use Facebook as a reflective tool? (Attendees at this session did not answer this question but in a different session a psychologist explained how she uses Facebook in group therapy sessions.)
• Are there a significant number of students who belong to Facebook groups but have low participation rates in the physical group (don’t attend meetings, participate in activities, etc.)? Attendees claimed to know such students but no one (including myself) knew of any relevant research.
• If we assume that our efforts to use Facebook to advertise events are successful, are participation rates increasing, too?

It seems to me that there were two dominant themes throughout this presentation and the subsequent discussion:

1. The role of Facebook in student involvement and the changing nature of involvement itself. For example, Heiberger said that Facebook’s NCAA Men’s Basketball Pool was an example of “engaging across the country versus across the room.” Although many university and college administrators and student employees are using Facebook and similar tools to advertise campus events and communicate with students and student groups, the larger questions of the changing nature of involvement and engagement must be asked and Heiberger and others performing research in that area are doing very interesting and necessary work.
2. Despite the negative media attention (much of it generated by student affairs and higher education, IMHO), there are many positive uses for Facebook and similar tools. In this session and in others, there was a pushback not just from the presenter but from attendees against the negative stereotypes and a call to recognize the potential for healthy, good, and productive uses of these tools.

Update: Ruth contacted me a few weeks ago to clarify her role in Greg’s research and presentation.  She was the faculty member that supervised Greg’s research and helped put together the conference proposal.  She told me that it’s standard practice at South Dakota State University for supervising faculty members signing on as the “coordinating presenter” for grad student presentations.  Thanks for the clarification Ruth!

Comments(1)

The third session I attended today was entitled “Students and Cell Phones: Exploring Their Use and Crafting Our Response.” The presentation was an overview of preliminary research conducted by a doctoral candidate from Emory University. Her research is a qualitative analysis of traditional students’ use of wireless phones based on interviews, journals, and analysis of phone bills. While the sample size of the initial research was tiny (5 students), the results are interesting and the presentation was fantastic.

Given the tiny size of the sample, I am hesitant to delve into specifics on the results of the research. However, the findings are not terribly surprising and reflect the common uses of wireless phones as ubiquitous and useful communication tools. In fact, the presentation largely focused on how similar our own usage patterns are to our students’. Following the discussion of the research results, Molyneaux enumerated some concrete ideas for student affairs administrators:

• Students may need education and mentoring in particular skills that their uses of wireless phones show they lack or possess in inadequate measures. Such skills may include scheduling, patience, immediacy of expectations, and reflection.
• Parents, too, may need to be taught new skills or convinced to improve already-possessed skills such as the ability to sift through large volumes of data/conversations and letting one’s child handle problems on his or her own.

Discussion from and among attendees was also interesting.

• Although one attendee emphasized the need to “meet [students] where they are,” another stressed that her students were adamant that administrators must not too actively pursue SMS or other use of wireless phones as students perceive it as too personal or “theirs;” compare with the same sentiments and issues surrounding Facebook.
• An idea with significant potential (it’s unclear if this idea has actually been put into practice or is merely an idea) is to use e-mail distribution lists with an SMS gateway to send mass SMS messages to groups of students. I’m pretty sure this has been done as it’s too simple and cheap to not have been done already.
• When the question of “Does your institution have a policy regarding student use of phones when in 1:1 meeting with administrators or faculty?” arose, one attendee shared that she makes it a point to leave the room when students answer their phones in these situations. Before leaving, she tells them that “I know this call is important so I’ll leave you alone” and when she returns in 5-10 minutes she not only makes sure they know that their appointment will end at the scheduled time but also works the incident into the educational process as appropriate (the classic “teachable moment”). A different attendee followed up with the observation that staff members must also uphold respectful ethics of phone use and model proper behavior to which a faculty member replied that the most effective way to get his class to turn off their phones is to turn off his own phone in a very conspicious and noticeable manner.
• During a discussion about the ethics of phone use (perhaps following the above discussion of phone use during meetings), an attendee described a student-initiated effort to make part of the library a “quiet zone” where wireless phone discussion are not allowed.

Comments(5)

The second program I attended today was a public policy session entitled “The Future of Higher Education: A National Perpsective.” The program focused on the Spellings Commission and its reports and activities. While the topic is very important to the future of higher education in America, it falls a bit outside the realms of student affairs and technology so I defer to others more knowledgable and experienced to comment on and discuss the topic. However, I do perceive a few areas where this blog’s topics tie in with the Spellings Commission’s topics:

• Many of the initiatives proposed by the Spellings Commission, including Huge IPEDS, the Consumer Information Pilot studies, FAFSA4Caster, and many of the accountability and transparency measures, are driven by and only possible because of readily-available and familiar technologies and technological tools. That so many of these initiatives, particularly those intended for the public, are intended to live online as websites speaks volumes for the acceptance of the web as a universally-accessible and -usable medium. Of course, that acceptance is a bit naive: the digital divide still exists and those close to that divide do not possess familiarity and comfort with web-based tools.
• One of the original findings of the Spellings Commission was that American has failed to sustain and nurture innovation. Is Congress’ apparent insistence that we employ ineffective and restrictive tools to filter content on our networks to fight unlawful exhanges of copyrighted material at odds with that finding?
• I’ve just finished re-reading “The Social Life of Information,” an excellent book by PARC researchers John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid. It’s rare that non-academics discuss accreditation and it’s even rarer that non-academics would make an explicit connection between accreditation and IT. In a discussion of how accreditation allows institutions to offer courses that are extremely important but difficult to justify when analyzed on their own and out of context, the authors write that “For information technology to lead to such micromanaging would be a paradoxical and unfortunate result. An extraordinary amount of the creative outburst that has generated this technology has come from people who used the slack of a university to explore new avenues.”

Comments(0)