Tenure and Promotion in the Age of Online Social Media
|
This is the space reserved for copyright notices.
ASIST 2011, October 9-13, 2011, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Copyright notice
continues right here.
|
Online social media
tools are fast becoming an important and integral part of the academic life.
However, there is very little hard data on why and how scholars are using them.
This paper presents the results of our ongoing study on how academics are using
these new tools for communication and information dissemination. We
specifically look at how scholars themselves view the role that online social
media might play in the tenure and promotion process at academic and research
institutions. The results of our study find that the use of online social media
is currently not widely recognized by most research institutions as part of
their tenure and promotion review process. However, according to our interview
data, this will likely change in the future as more and more scholars turn to
these new tools to aid them in their professional endeavors. The trending
changes found in this study are important not only for the future of scholarly
knowledge and information dissemination, but also for the changes it will bring
to universities’ tenure and promotion policies and to publishers of scholarly
work.
Keywords
Online Social Media (OSM), Information and Communication
Technology (ICT), Scholarly Practices, Information Dissemination, Tenure and
Promotion.
INTRODUCTION
Although online
social media (OSM) tools such as blogs, wikis and social networking websites
are relatively new, as compared to other forms of Information and
Communication Technologies, their use
has skyrocketed among the general public. A recent Pew Research Center survey
shows that about 62% of internet users in the US are using social networking
sites (Rainie, et.al., 2011),
and this number is rapidly growing. However, it is not just the general public,
but scholars who are also increasingly paying more attention to and
experimenting with OSM in their professional lives. A recent example of
this is the use of wikis and blogs by complexity theorists
to collaborate and debate the accuracy of "a claimed proof for one of the
most profound and difficult problems facing mathematicians and computer
scientists" (Markoff, 2010). The problem is known as the "P versus
NP" problem. A mathematician, Dr. Deolalikar, allegedly proved that P does
not equal NP. When Dr. Deolalikar first announced that he had solved the P
versus NP problem, other mathematicians were skeptical and turned to wikis and
blogs to debate the accuracy and validity of this proof. According to Markoff
(2010), the level and pace of collaboration to test this new proof was
unprecedented in the mathematical field. These quick conversations were made
possible as a result of access to online social media and networking sites. A
similar situation arose on Twitter when researchers claimed to have found a
gene that predicted the human lifespan, in Science
magazine (Mandavilli, 2011). Researchers and other interested parties turned to
Twitter, a microblogging platform, to discuss and debate these findings in real
time. This led to the discovery of a problem with the methodology of the study
very shortly after it had been released. The availability of online social
media and networking technologies has made these unofficial peer-reviews faster
and more widely available. Before the advent of OSM, debates such as these
would have taken months if not years to develop via peer-reviewed journals and
private emails and listservs.
Previous studies have also
hinted at other benefits associated with the scholarly
use of OSM, such as keeping up with current research (Maron, et al., 2008), ease
and immediacy of access (Gardiner, 2006), as well as effective collaboration
and communication (Bonetta, 2007; Menzies, 2007; Procter, et al., 2010). A study of 10 science bloggers, for example, found
that reading their peers’ blogs not only served to keep them up to date with
research and issues in their field, but also increased their familiarity with
other scholars interested in the same topics (Bonetta, 2007). This served to
extend their peer network and form new connections, which is another common
benefit of OSM use among scholars (Collins and Hide, 2010). The use of OSM has
also been associated with career advancement, increased visibility, and
opportunities for self-publishing (Bukvova, et al., 2010; Dubini, et al, 2010).
Although online social media and
networking technologies are gaining in popularity and importance in scholarly
communities, this trend does not always extend to the institutions,
organizations, and publishing platforms that support them. Many scholars in
previous studies have claimed that online publishing, and the participation in
online communities and collaborations, are not encouraged, supported, or
rewarded by their institution (Ayris, 2009; Kirkup, 2010). In some
cases, participation in online communities has led to the termination of a
faculty member, as in the case of one professor who was fired from a US university
for posting unspecified material to her personal blog (Horwedel, 2006). Institutions
are often cautious about encouraging OSM use by their faculty because it is
still so new, while scholars are hesitant to contribute because they do not
know how their institutions view such initiatives (Ayris, 2009). So the use and
worth of social media become yet another perfect example of the classic problem
of which comes first, the chicken or the egg? This quandary has proven to be a
major impediment to the wider use of social media and networking sites by
scholars.
With this as background information, this paper seeks to
answer the key questions as to whether academic institutions should improve
their support of the scholarly use of these new technologies. And more
specifically, should OSM be formally included as part of the tenure and promotion
guidelines? And if yes, how? This paper is part of our ongoing efforts to study
how scholars in Library and Information Science and other disciplines are
adopting and adapting to these new tools for communication and information
dissemination purposes.
DEFINING ONLINE SOCIAL MEDIA
Before we started
our study, we first had to define what is meant by online social media; as we
soon learned it was not an easy task. Online social media tools are commonly
associated with what is referred to as web 2.0 technologies and the presence of
user generated content (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010; Procter, et al.,
2010). The term web 2.0 was first used
in its modern meaning in early 2000s to refer to the new way the internet was
being used, allowing for more participatory and collaborative surfing of the
web as well as creation and modification of online content. Notably, web 2.0
does not refer to a specific application, but rather to a technological and
ideological change in the way the internet is used. One of the key components
of web 2.0 is ‘user generated content’ that often refers to any form of user
created media, which is published on a publically accessible website or a
website accessible to a select group of people (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010).
Some examples of early OSM include tools like blogs and wikis, joined later by
social networking sites like Friendster, Myspace, and Facebook.
However, today more
and more websites are beginning to incorporate user generated content, such as
comment platforms, and social networking features, such as the ability to
subscribe to friends’ updates or share content with them, all of which are key characteristics
that help to define web 2.0 technologies. The addition of such features to
traditional websites is expanding the definition of social media sites and
services as well as the number of social activities that users can now conduct on
a wide variety of websites across the internet. For example, traditionally
solitary activities such as online writing, reading, and reference gathering are
now becoming more social due to the advent of OSM sites and services to support
these activities such as Google Docs (an office application with social
features to collaborate, share and publish documents online), Scribd (a document publishing, reading,
and sharing platform) and Zotero (a reference
management software with a variety of social interaction features such
as reference sharing and group settings),
just to name a few.
In recognition of
this trend, we decided to employ a broad definition of OSM. Specifically, for
the purposes of this study, we chose to refer to OSM tools as any web-based
websites that include web 2.0 characteristics and contain some aspect of user
generated content. This allowed us to include a wide variety of technologies
from video/teleconferencing tools such as Skype and online media repositories
such as Flickr, to microblogging tools like Twitter and social networking sites
like Facebook and Academia.edu. We chose to employ this broad definition to
allow for the widest number of social media tools to be recognized. In doing
this we were able to gain the broadest view of OSM used by academics.
In addition to the
OSM tools mentioned above, we also asked the participants about listserv groups.
Although listservs are not examples of OSM and are not treated as OSM for the
purpose of this study, they do exhibit many characteristics of modern OSM
principles (unlike emails) such as a community-driven approach to online
conversations and a notion of membership to a group or network of likeminded
individuals. Furthermore, since listservs have been considered one of the
primary channels for information dissemination and communication in scholarly
communities for the last two decades, responses about listservs provided us
with the baseline data on online scholarly communication which can then be used
to compare other OSM tools.
Methodology
To address the research questions mentioned above, an
extensive literature review was conducted on this subject, followed by
semi-structured interviews with scholars mainly from the Library and
Information Science field who are also members of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T). ASIS&T members were chosen
for this study because they are known to be technologically savvy and tend to
be early adopters of new technology such as online social media and social
networking tools.
In total, the interviewees consisted of 51 conference
attendees or individuals recommended by other interviewees. The participants
were recruited via a direct email invitation before or in-person during the
ASIS&T 2010 annual conference. Of the 51 scholars interviewed for this
study, twenty-five (25) were males and twenty-six (26) were females. To ensure
that there would be a variety of opinions in our survey, we took steps in our
recruitment to ensure that interviewees hailed from a few different countries,
and were working in a variety of positions within academia (See Table 1 below).
Our secondary recruitment goal was to ensure that we included both scholars who
are likely and unlikely to use OSM in their professional lives. We accomplished
this by prominently highlighting and encouraging self-identified users and
non-users of OSM to participate in our interviews.
|
Gender
|
Total
|
%
|
|
Female
|
26
|
51
|
|
Male
|
25
|
49
|
|
Country
|
|
|
|
United States
|
29
|
57
|
|
Canada
|
17
|
33
|
|
Europe (UK
& Denmark)
|
5
|
10
|
|
Position
|
|
|
|
Assistant Professor
|
19
|
37
|
|
Associate Professor
|
10
|
20
|
|
PhD Student
|
6
|
12
|
|
Professor
|
5
|
10
|
|
Researcher
|
4
|
8
|
|
Director/Dean
|
4
|
8
|
|
Librarian
|
2
|
4
|
|
Instructor
|
1
|
2
|
|
Discipline
|
|
|
|
Library & Info Studies
|
44
|
86
|
|
Computer Science
|
3
|
6
|
|
Media/Communication Studies
|
2
|
4
|
|
Business Administration
|
1
|
2
|
|
Engineering
|
1
|
2
|
Table 1. Demographic
Information of Participants
The first set of interviews was conducted in person at the
ASIS&T conference, which took place in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
from October 22nd-27th, 2010. After the conference,
individuals who agreed to participate in the study but did not attend the
conference were interviewed over the phone.
The interviews were semi-structured, with a total of 13
prompting questions. Respondents were first asked about their use of 13
different kinds of online social media, and then asked to elaborate on their
use of one OSM tool, that they defined as their most frequently used tool. After
this participants were asked questions pertaining to: general online social
media use, making new connections and reaching a wider audience through OSM,
problems with OSM, the recognition of OSM during tenure and promotion reviews,
and OSM in the future. Interviews lasted between 15 and 40 minutes depending on
the participant. For the purposes of this paper, we will primarily focus on the
questions related to the role of OSM in the tenure and promotion process and
the future of OSM.
All interviews were recorded using a digital recorder and
then manually transcribed. The confidentiality and anonymity of all
participants was insured by making the names of study participants only known
to the research team, using aliases for the interview participants in the
transcriptions and excluding identifying characteristics in all reports and
publications.
Data analysis was completed using NVivo 9, a qualitative data analysis
software program. First, a thematic coding schema was developed based on
preliminary analysis of interview data. Codes were developed based on the main
OSM tools mentioned (blogs, wikis, etc), as well as general factors such as
overall ‘benefits’, ‘problems’, ‘future trends’, etc. Two research assistants
independently coded each interview transcript using the developed coding
schema. Once both research assistants completed coding, both coded datasets
were compared using NVivo. This comparison demonstrated that of 13,677 records
(coded sections of transcriptions), 13,308 (97%) had an agreement percentage
above 90%. One coded dataset was selected for further data analysis.
Results
Academic tenure is a position awarded to scholars working at
the university level who have completed a set probationary period at their
institution (in the US and Canada this is usually 5-7 years), and have been
awarded this position by a review committee or committees made up of their
faculty dean, department chair, and a selection of their peers. This status is
an important professional achievement; as after the attainment of a tenured
faculty position at an academic institution, a scholar cannot be fired or let
go without proven adequate cause (Hohm and Shore, 1998).
In order to earn tenure, a tenure-track faculty member must
meet certain requirements as set out by their institution. These requirements
are usually separated into three main broad components: 1) Research, 2) Service,
and 3) Teaching. Although these components are usually given approximately
equal weight in the tenure and promotion review process, the weighting of each
component may vary from one academic institution to another, depending on the
institutions’ goals and mandates. The specific requirements and guidelines
associated with each of the three primary components that makes up the tenure
and promotion process will be discussed below in relation to scholars’ OSM use.
Since our study’s primary focus was on OSM use in the context of research
related activities, this paper will only briefly touch on the teaching
component.
Of the 51 people interviewed, only 6 scholars worked for an
institution that currently recognized OSM use or publications as part of their
tenure review and promotion process in some way. For example, one junior
scholar stated “I looked into it, and
they have a sort of cautiously-worded document […] that says something to the
extent of ‘in view of the fact that there are a multiplicity of ways for
scholarship […] evaluation should take into account publications in other
media’.”
Although OSM usage for publication and dissemination of research
work is not yet widely recognized in the tenure and promotion process, most
respondents (33 individuals) believed that it should be given some
consideration, including 18 people who stated that OSM use or publications
should be evaluated on a case by case basis (See Figure 1). One junior scholar
stated, “I’d really like to see it become
a part of tenure and promotion. Because I think that a lot of people are using
it fully professionally. They’re making contacts, and they’re also positively
contributing to the field […] and I think that’s a really important part of
what faculty does. They sort of promote their field…”
Figure 1. Should Online
Social Media be Considered Towards Tenure or Promotion?
At the same time, of the respondents who believe that OSM
use or publications should be considered, most raised concerns about how, and
to what degree, they should be considered and whether they should count toward
the research component or the service component of the tenure/promotion
process. Similar concerns were raised by those who believed that OSM should not be considered in any form
for tenure or promotion. For instance, one respondent stated that “I think it's a hard thing to quantify. I
mean what does it mean to say you have 50,000 followers on Twitter? Does that
mean that you are a better academic? Should that be recognized for promotion
and tenure? I'm not so sure. What's the reason that you're being followed?”
But this respondent also followed up by saying that “It's the same reason as with bibliometrics. Maybe they follow you
because you do outrageous things and it has nothing to do with your
professional standing.”
The disagreement and
uncertainty among scholars on the merit of OSM-based usage and publications no
doubt reflects the lack of clear policies among academic institutions. It is
this lack of clarity on the role of OSM in academia that prompted this study. In
the following sections, we will discuss the applicability of OSM usage to the
Research, Service and Teaching components separately. This section will also
discuss indirect benefits of OSM use in relation to the current tenure and
promotion process, and differences in OSM use between junior and more senior
faculty members.
Research Component
The research component of the tenure review process can
include a wide range of activities, including: scholars’ reputation in their
field, conference participation, and originality of research. Generally
regarded as the most influential and important aspect of a scholar’s research
is their publication quality and quantity, as well as where their research was
published and how influential and recognized it is in their field
(Rhoadea-Catanach and Stout, 2000). The consistent publication of recognized
scholarly articles is not only of major concern to junior faculty who are
hoping to receive tenured positions, but to tenured faculty members as well.
Because of the amount of time it takes to publish through
traditional peer-reviewed journals, many scholars are increasingly turning to
self-publishing and other alternative publishing methods to disseminate their
research (Ho, 2011). This is particularly true of scholars in fields like
advanced physics and biology, where developments in their field of study often
progress at a rapid rate, and demand almost instantaneous publication and
feedback (Menzies, 2007).
Due to this growing popularity of
self-publishing venues by scholars, we asked our interviewees if and how their
use of traditional information dissemination tools (such as academic journals)
has changed since they started using OSM tools. Only 25% (13) of participants
stated that use of OSM tools has not changed their use of traditional
information resources. About half (27 individuals) stated that these tools are
used as a complimentary resource to traditional information resources. The
level of professional OSM use of these respondents varies, and is mainly
focused on finding information rather than disseminating it. One
academic stated: “I follow a bunch of
academics in my research area. So…I catch papers other people have published.
So they do the same thing and tweet papers that they've had published, once
they are published.”
Finally, 10 scholars stated that the
use of OSM tools professionally has inspired a large change in the way they use
traditional information dissemination channels or made them more aware of the drawbacks to
traditional information dissemination resources.
Participants in this group often described this change as a move away from use
of traditional (mainly print) resources, to an increased dependence on OSM
tools for finding, and circulating information. In response to the microblogging tool Twitter, one of our interview
respondents stated: “Twitter is really useful. In terms of knowing what’s
going on, what the trends are…so it’s also a way to aggregate what’s going
on…without necessarily having to read all the journals, follow all the
conferences, things like that”.
All together, the majority (37
individuals) of our scholars stated that their use of these tools has inspired
and or altered the way they used traditional information dissemination
resources. This reinforces the fact that OSM tools are quickly becoming an
integral part of modern scholarly life and practice. It also signifies a time
in the near future when the use of these tools will also alter the current
tenure and promotion review process.
Service Component
5 people in our sample suggested that OSM use should count
towards the service component of tenure and promotion (see Figure 1). The
service component of the tenure and promotion review process is perhaps the
least clearly defined in many institutions’ tenure policies. It can include: an
evaluation of the scholar’s contributions to the institutions’, departments’,
or fields’ positive reputation, their time spent volunteering on committees and
boards, and their positive contributions to the local community in general
(Rhoadea-Catanach and Stout, 2000). To make positive contributions to these
communities, OSM can be useful when used as part of scholars’ professional
practices. The dissemination of information for example, was a frequently cited
motivation for the use of social media and networking sites by scholars
(Barjak, 2003; Letierce, et al 2010). This was shown to be especially important
to scholars in educating the 'lay' public about scientific topics, especially
ones which receive a lot of attention in the press (e.g., Bonetta, 2007;
Bukvova, et al., 2010; Collins and Hide, 2010). OSM platforms allow the fast
and wide dissemination of scholars’ current research and in this way can aid in
fulfilling the service requirements in the tenure and promotion process.
Indirect Benefits
Although some of our
survey participants felt that OSM use itself should not be considered as part
of the tenure and promotion process, most recognized that its professional use
does create many indirect benefits that could result in a scholar receiving a
promotion or tenure: including establishing new professional contacts (30
respondents), maintaining existing contacts (17 respondents), keeping up to
date (15 respondents) and promoting one’s work (13 respondents).
Interestingly,
junior faculty members were twice more likely to mention the benefit of
establishing new professional contacts than senior faculty members (See Figure
2). A number of more senior scholars in our study explained that they already
have an established network, implying there is a lesser need for them to create
new connections. Expanding on this, one senior professor stated: “so, if I have an existing network, I’m in
conferences all the time, I am at a major research university…I’m not looking
for more social contacts […] if you’ve got a more senior person, they’ve
already got their network, they’ve already got their networking techniques
worked out.”
The scholars we
interviewed also highlighted OSM’s usefulness in both collaborating and
communicating with team members, sharing ideas, and making writing both easier
and faster, especially with team members who are geographically distributed.
One person said: “I have a friend [and], we’ve done presentations together,
and she’s in [a different State]. So rather than sending an email back and
forth, we find it’s easier to do it on Google docs...”
This is in line with
a number of previous studies in this area that also found and confirmed OSM’s
ability to connect scholars and facilitate communication between peers (Barjak,
2006; Biernholtz et al., 2009; Letierce et al., 2010; Gardiner, 2006).
Figure 2. Percentage of
Benefits Associated with OSM Use by Position
Junior vs. Senior Faculty
As the previous section suggested, there are some
differences in OSM use between junior and senior faculty members. Since the
focus of this paper is on tenure and promotion, we decided to compare responses
between senior faculty (presumably the majority of which have achieved
tenured), and junior faculty (who have not yet achieved tenure, but presumably
will seek tenured positions in the future and thus have the highest stakes in
this issue). Our participants were fairly evenly split between junior or senior
scholars. In total there were 18 senior (the Associate level and up) and 19
junior faculty members (Assistant professor level). (See Table 1) For comparison
purposes, we relied on percentages instead of raw counts. Tenured faculty members
were likely to be more senior not only in professional status but in age as
well, making generational preferences a factor. These differences in age and
professional position are important to note in the analysis of this question
since both factors have been shown to influence OSM use among scholars in our
study.
The results of our study showed that junior faculty members
are utilizing OSM tools more often than senior faculty members (see Figure 3).
Specifically, junior faculty members are more likely to use: blogs, microblogs,
social bookmarking tools, academic social networking, and bibliographic
management sites than their senior cohorts. Listserv groups were the only tools
that were used more often by senior faculty; 78% of the senior professors in
our study used listservs, compared to 53% of junior professors.
Figure 3. Percentage of
OSM Use by Position
Many of the OSM tools that junior faculty members are using
tend to be those that are also useful in building and reinforcing social and
professional connections and creating a higher profile, like: blogs,
microblogs, and academic social networking sites. As the previous section
suggested, junior professors might be utilizing these tools more than senior
professors because they are still developing connections, while senior
professors have already established connections and do not need OSM tools for
this purpose. The establishment of a network of peers is important for scholars
professionally, especially as it relates to finding potential collaborators and
increasing publication output. These tools are also ideal in reaching out to
the academic or the lay community in general, and facilitating scholars’
participation in institutional or community specific events. And, as the
section on Service Component
indicated, contributing knowledge through a blog, wiki, or microblog to various
communities could be an important part of the service component in the tenure
and promotion review process. As more frequent users of these tools, junior
faculty members no doubt recognize these benefits and therefore would want them
to be properly recognized at their institutions.
Interestingly, earlier studies
on internet usage by scholars suggested that more senior scholars, who are
usually in positions of security because of an established identity in their
field, felt more confident in their use of new publication, communication, and
networking sites. For example, in 2003 over 1,600 European scientists surveyed
on their use of the internet for informal communication revealed that senior
scholars had the highest usage levels (Barjak, 2006). A study conducted in 2005
on scholars’ ability to form new scholarly ties with previously unknown
scholars also found similar results. Junior scholars were the least likely
group to initiate contact with an unknown scholar, or to receive unsolicited
communication from unknown academic sources (Genoni, et al., 2005).
However, more recent studies
have demonstrated a reversal of these findings; junior faculty members are now
increasingly embracing new technologies such as online social networking sites
in their professional lives. A 2010 study conducted on 1,200 academic
researchers in the UK
found that the most common age for frequent users of web 2.0 technologies,
especially blogs, were between the ages of 35 and 44 (Collins and Hide, 2010).
From this and our study, it seems that for a variety of reasons junior faculty
members are much more likely to adopt OSM technologies than their senior
colleagues. Thus, it is only natural that in the years to come, the current
class of junior faculty members will likely insist OSM use and publications be
accepted formally as part of their tenure application packages.
Teaching Component
The teaching component of tenure evaluates how effective a
scholar is as a university instructor. The method for evaluating this can
include a review of student comment forms, and appropriateness of course
materials and publications by the scholar related to their course
(Rhoadea-Catanach and Stout, 2000). The use of online social media can be
incorporated into a few of the evaluation criteria for the teaching component. Although
we did not specifically focus on scholars’ use of OSM tools in their teaching
and instruction as part of this study, it has been recognized in a number of
studies to aid in these practices (e.g., Tian and Yan, 2011; McNely, et al.,
2010). The use of OSM tools has been growing in university classrooms, with
some surveys claiming adoption rates as high as 80% among university classrooms
in the US
(Moran, et al., 2010). This is in part driven by a high adoption rate of these
tools among students. According to a recent study
done by the EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, over 90% of students under 25
reported using social networking sites (SNS) (Smith and Caruso, 2010). It seems
that instructors across North America are also
quickly catching on to this fact, and are starting to incorporate SNS and
social media into their lesson plans. In fact, almost two-thirds of
faculty members in North America have used social
media during a class (Moran, et al., 2010). For
example, Dr. Alec Couros, an Associate Professor at the University of Regina,
has started incorporating wikis into courses such as Educational Technology and
Media (Chant, 2010). On the course wiki, students are invited to contribute to
reading lists, discussions regarding assignments, and so on. Since the wiki is
open, both current and past students are able to engage in the dialogue and
contribute ideas. Another interesting example is from the University of Chicago
Law School, where faculty and students created a microblogging platform called
TweetChicago (http://webcast-law.uchicago.edu/tweetchicago), in which they
contribute tweets regarding what they are doing and thinking about during the
day. The purpose is to share projects, articles, or links of interest with the
entire law school community, as well as provide prospective students with an
idea of what daily life is like at their School.
Evidently, there are many
potential benefits to using OSM tools in a classroom setting. For example, by
having access to OSM tools, students can continue discussions started in one
class and carry them over to another. Students also have a chance to view and
build on conversations by others who took the same class in a previous
semester. If used correctly, these new communication tools are a great way to
create a sense of community among students and improve their ability to learn.
Whether it is submitting questions via Twitter, blogging about current events
related to general themes of the class, or using Facebook to carry out class
discussions, students' class participation and engagement are likely to
increase once OSM tools are introduced into the mix.
The way these tools are being used by faculty for teaching
is especially important. Their main function is as an additional information
resource provided to students (Moran, et al., 2010). Professors recognize that
most students already know how to use popular social networking tools such as
Facebook, making them resources with low learning curves for classrooms (Young,
2010).
Their wide familiarity to post-secondary students, coupled
with the fact that many OSM tools are often free and easily accessible makes
the use of these sites in the classroom an easy and relatively risk free
supplement to classroom learning. Privacy however, is still a major concern
when integrating these tools into teaching. Promoters of OSM tools for the
classroom stress that professional boundaries need to be clearly separated from
personal ones, by properly setting privacy settings and forming clear
boundaries through the use of these tools (Young, 2010). Even with this risk,
these tools are becoming a popular way for professors to engage their students,
and connect them to information in and outside the classroom.
Post a Comment