One simple way to define a social networking platform might be, “a tool that lets students, parents, and educators collaborate online”.
allow educators to make pages and forums that are course-specific and not wide open to everyone
create multiple online groups for individual classrooms, projects, extracurricular activities,
store and share personal school files including documents, photos, video, and audio
share educational resources and experiences”
can share resources, opinions and experiences relating to that subject with other schools and staff worldwide
The aim is to keep everyone and everything as up-to-date as possible – a live arena for all your educational interests”. Browsing their list of schools, they appear to have hundreds of client schools.
o What do I have students do with them?
o How do I grade them?
o How do I monitor the barrage of posts and comments?
o Where do they fit in my curriculum?
o How do I manage class time?
o How do I teach students how to be safe online?
o What can I do to keep students from getting burned out on blogging?
If teachers had someone to work with, someone to guide them through the set-up and management of blogs, to show them how to implement them in their classrooms, with their students, with their curriculum—would more teachers be blogging? Would there be greater numbers experimenting with wikis, podcasts, video production?
what I’m describing is an Instructional Technologist
are adding these technology/curriculum specialists—educators who can work alongside teachers to support them and encourage them to undertake adventurous technology-rich activities, activities like those described by Clarence Fisch where students interact in “live blogging” to discuss Daniel Pink’s A Whole New Mind.
If more schools hired Instructional Technologists, would more teachers be clamoring to the keyboard, rushing to web 2.0 sites, designing activities that allow students to design, create, produce, evaluate, synthesize, publish?
Social networking has made explicit the connections between people, so that a thriving ecosystem of small programs can exploit this “social graph” to enable friends to interact via games, greetings, video clips and so on.
But should users really have to visit a specific website to do this sort of thing? “We will look back to 2008 and think it archaic and quaint that we had to go to a destination like Facebook or LinkedIn to be social,” says Charlene Li at Forrester Research, a consultancy. Future social networks, she thinks, “will be like air. They will be anywhere and everywhere we need and want them to be.”
No more logging on to Facebook just to see the “news feed” of updates from your friends; instead it will come straight to your e-mail inbox, RSS reader or instant messenger. No need to upload photos to Facebook to show them to friends, since those with privacy permissions in your electronic address book can automatically get them.
As a result, avid internet users often maintain separate accounts on several social networks, instant-messaging services, photo-sharing and blogging sites, and usually cannot even send simple messages from one to the other. They must invite the same friends to each service separately. It is a drag.
The early e-mail services could send messages only within their own walls (rather as Facebook's messaging does today). Instant-messaging, too, started closed, but is gradually opening up. In social networking, this evolution is just beginning. Parts of the industry are collaborating in a “data portability workgroup” to let people move their friend lists and other information around the web.