Jennifer Stuard

Wiki Entry #1: Su Song/Water Clock Tower

Su Song was born in 1020 in the Fujian Province in China. Su Song had many interests and was therefore knowledgeable in many different areas. He was a prominent Chinese cartographer, zoologist, pharmacologist, astronomer, mineralogist and engineer.

Growing up, Su Song was widely known as a brilliant student throughout the entirety of his academic career. He received many honorary titles and was even appointed as the ambassador for the Song dynasty.

With his working knowledge of calendars and astronomy, Su Song set out to build an astronomical clock in 1088. He led a team of skilled mathematicians and artisans in building the water clock tower.

The clock tower was over 30 feet high. It took about 12 years to build because it was such an immense project for that time period. The clock contained an eleven foot water wheel with 36 buckets that filled with water to move the water throughout the tower. The water wheel turned about a hundred times a day.

The clock tower itself consisted of three levels. The upper level contained a bronze power-driven armillary sphere. The armillary sphere represented the great circles of the heavens which allowed astronomers to make accurate astronomical observations. The sphere was made up of twelve rings in three layers and each of the rings was marked with a scale. From the sphere, an astronomer could directly read off the positions of the twenty-four solar terms, and could find a star or planet by looking through a sighting tube.

The middle level contained a celestial globe which rotated on its own to display the movements of the celestial bodies.

Finally, the bottom level had wooden mannequins which struck the time of day. Every hour, the wooden mannequins would come out of this level, banging gongs and ringing bells to make sure people knew that the new hour had begun. There were a total of 117 mannequins inside of the clock.

The whole tower was powered by water without any human effort at all. At that time, it was the most advanced astronomical instrument of its day. The clock was used for astronomical observations and for time keeping purposes. The mechanism used on the water clock by Su Song anticipated techniques that would not be used in Europe for hundreds of years.

Unfortunately, after only 39 years after the clock tower was created, it was destroyed when the Jin army invaded the Song dynasty’s capitol. They completely dismantled the clock in 1127 and carried it off to their capitol which is modern day Beijing. However, due to the complexity of Su Song’s construction, they were unable to reassemble the water clock tower.

Su Song died in 1101, and although he had contributed to other areas of work and received many different honorary titles he is best known for his work on the Water Clock Tower.

Although the actual water clock no longer exists, replicas exist today that were built from Su Song’s original drawings of the water clock. One such replica can be found at the National Museum of Natural Sciences in China.

Su Song was important to the history of computers and computing because he essentially created one of the first mechanical computers which was a precursor to future mechanical computers. However, instead of calculating number tabulations, his water clock was used to calculate the movement of the sun, moon and stars. This model would even serve as an inspiration for modern day clocks!

Works Cited

Su Song. (2010). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved May 30, 2010, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1530547/Su-Song

Su Song. (n.d.). Retrieved May 30, 2010, from http://www.legends.mapsofworld.com/ancient/su-song.html

WebChron. (n.d.). Su Song's Clock. Retrieved May 30, 2010, from http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/china/SongClock.html

Wiki Entry #2: Microsoft Windows

The creation of Microsoft Windows began when Microsoft, founded by Bill Gates in 1975, began the task of trying to transform the MS-DOS in to a graphical interface. Basically, the most popular software programs for the PC were completely different from one another and required different methods for the same function (like copying and pasting) on each individual program. Also, there were no standards for how applications communicated with printers.

In order to solve this problem, Bill Gates envisioned placing a layer (which he temporarily called the Interface Manager) between the MS-DOS and applications to record the system’s particular type of printer and monitor. Applications would then rely on this Interface Manager for the information on the printer and monitor, so users wouldn’t have to work directly with the DOS. As a secondary function, the Interface Manager would also place a graphical interface on top of MS-DOS and bring uniformity to all applications that ran under it. This would ultimately make the MS-DOS machine much more user friendly.

Under Bill Gates’ vision, the Interface Manager project began in September 1981. Gates set the following conditions for the Interface Manager: it had to be independent of the hardware, it had to work in graphics mode, it had to support WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get: What appears on the screen looks exactly like what is printed) applications and it had to standardize the appearance of applications. The Interface Manager would also be able to display several documents simultaneously in separate windows on the screen.

In the fall of 1982, VisiCorp announced VisiOn; a program similar to the Interface Manager Microsoft was working on.

In January 1983, Gates hinted that Microsoft had been working on a similar project and that it would ship before VisiCorp’s product. A few weeks later, Microsoft got the prototype of the Interface Manager to run on a PC.

In May 1983, Jeff Raikes suggested the name Microsoft Desktop for the Interface Manager. Ultimately, a simpler name won out, and the Interface Manager was called Microsoft Windows.

Unfortunately for Gates, he was not able to release his product before the competitors. VisiCorp announced it would begin shipping its windowing environment to the 30,000 customers who had already put in orders in October of 1983. Shortly after, Quarterdeck, a new software publisher, announced its own windowing environment called DESQ. In order to combat the two window environments released before Microsoft Windows, Gates decided to announce Windows to the press two weeks later, which turned out to be a hasty decision he and the company would later regret because due to the organizational structure of the company and other technical problems, it would be over two years before Windows would be actually released to the public.

On November 10, 1983, in New York, Microsoft officially announced Microsoft Windows, which they stated would be “a graphical user interface to cover DOS.” Gates even went so far as to claim that by the end of 1984, Windows would be operational on more than 90 percent of all MS-DOS computers. He even claimed that Windows would be able to integrate more than 90 percent of all MS-DOS programs.

Unfortunately, the Windows development team, led by Scott MacGregor, experienced many problems. The release of Microsoft Windows was pushed back several times. Fortunately, competitors with software already released had to deal with problems as well. VisiCorp struggled due to the fact that VisiOn could only run programs written especially for it. Quarterdeck’s DESQ was a commercial failure because it was very complex to use. At this point another competitor, Digital Research, entered the game. However, Digital Research’s GEM could only open one application at a time, unlike Windows that could launch several.

The delay was partly caused by the fact that Microsoft lacked strong organization within its development department. It overcame that by restructuring the organization of the company into two principle focuses: the operating system and the business applications.

Overall, The basic problem for the delay was that Windows took up too much memory and was too slow. The Windows delay affected the plans of a dozen other publishers, who had to postpone release of their window applications.

In early 1985, Microsoft still hadn’t released Windows. In January, the Microsoft Marketing department decided to change direction for windows. Instead of being a program shipped by manufacturers with their computers, the focus would now be shifted to a product for retail sale to end-users.

In May 1985, at the spring Comdex, Microsoft exhibited Windows and confirmed that it would be released in June.

On June 28, 1985, Microsoft was supposed to be released for retail, but instead was just released as a test version for software developers and computer manufacturers only.

Windows 1.03 was finally released in November 1985 (two years after it had been announced). Overall, it took 110,000 programming hours to create this first version of Windows.

Despite the recognition that came from finally completing the Windows project (which marked the end of the longest development cycle in Microsoft history), when Windows was released very few machines could do justice to this environment. The public stayed away from Windows because it was very slow and there were almost no programs to run under it. Also, because of the delay of the release of Windows, major publishers had lost interest in writing Windows applications.

Windows will go down in the history of the Microsoft Company as the product with the most records including the most cumulative delays and the greatest number of development hours. Windows monopolized more than 24 developers for over three years, which doesn’t even include the hours spent by the testing and documentation teams. By the time it was released, Windows had had a total of four product managers and three development directors.

Overall, the invention of Microsoft Windows was important to the history of the digital age, and even more specifically important to computers because despite its struggles it ultimately led to a new generation of more intuitive software for the PC.

Since the release of Windows 1.0 in 1985, there have been many newer updates to Microsoft Windows that ultimately allowed it to grow to become Microsoft’s best-selling product. Included below is a time-line of all of these products and a brief description as described by Microsoft, the company that designed Windows.

1985: Windows 1.0 The first version of Windows provided a new software environment for developing and running applications that use bitmap displays and mouse pointing devices. Before Windows, PC users relied on the MS-DOS® method of typing commands at the C prompt (C:\). With Windows, users moved a mouse to point and click their way through tasks, such as starting applications. In addition, Windows users could switch among several concurrently running applications. The product included a set of desktop applications, including the MS-DOS file management program, a calendar, card file, notepad, calculator, clock, and telecommunications programs, which helped users manage day-to-day activities.

1987: Windows 2.0 Windows 2.0 took advantage of the improved processing speed of the Intel 286 processor, expanded memory, and inter-application communication capabilities made possible through Dynamic Data Exchange (DDE). With improved graphics support, users could now overlap windows, control screen layout, and use keyboard combinations to move rapidly through Windows operations. Many developers wrote their first Windows–based applications for this release. The follow-up release, Windows 2.03, took advantage of the protected mode and extended memory capabilities of the Intel 386 processor. Subsequent Windows releases continued to improve the speed, reliability, and usability of the PC as well as interface design and capabilities.

1990: Windows 3.0 The third major release of the Windows platform from Microsoft offered improved performance, advanced graphics with 16 colors, and full support of the more powerful Intel 386 processor. A new wave of 386 PCs helped drive the popularity of Windows 3.0, which offered a wide range of useful features and capabilities, including: • Program Manager, File Manager, and Print Manager • A completely rewritten application development environment • An improved set of Windows icons The popularity of Windows 3.0 grew with the release of a new Windows software development kit (SDK), which helped software developers focus more on writing applications and less on writing device drivers. Widespread acceptance among third-party hardware and software developers helped fuel the success of Windows 3.0.

1993: Windows NT 3.1 When Microsoft Windows NT® was released to manufacturing on July 27, 1993, Microsoft met an important milestone: the completion of a project begun in the late 1980s to build an advanced new operating system from scratch. "Windows NT represents nothing less than a fundamental change in the way that companies can address their business computing requirements," Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates said at its release. That change is represented in the product's name: "NT" stands for new technology. To maintain consistency with Windows 3.1, a well-established home and business operating system at the time, the new Windows NT operating system began with version 3.1. Unlike Windows 3.1, however, Windows NT 3.1 was a 32-bit operating system. Windows NT was the first Windows operating system to combine support for high-end, client/server business applications with the industry's leading personal productivity applications. It was initially available in both a desktop (workstation) version and a server version called Windows NT Advanced Server. The desktop version was well received by developers because of its security, stability, and Microsoft Win32® application programming interface (API)—a combination that made it easier to support powerful programs. The result was a strategic business platform that could also function as a technical workstation to run high-end engineering and scientific applications. In addition, the operating system broke new ground in security, operating system power, performance, desktop scalability, and reliability. New features included a preemptive multitasking scheduler for Windows–based applications, integrated networking, domain server security, OS/2 and POSIX subsystems, support for multiple processor architectures, and the NTFS file system.

1993: Windows for Workgroups 3.11 A superset of Windows 3.1, Windows for Workgroups 3.11 added peer-to-peer workgroup and domain networking support. For the first time, Windows–based PCs were network-aware and became an integral part of the emerging client/server computing evolution. Windows for Workgroups was used in local area networks (LANs) and on standalone PCs and laptop computers. It added features of special interest to corporate users, such as centralized configuration and security, significantly improved support for Novell NetWare networks, and remote access service (RAS).

1994: Windows NT Workstation 3.5 The Windows NT Workstation 3.5 release provided the highest degree of protection yet for critical business applications and data. With support for the OpenGL graphics standard, this operating system helped power high-end applications for software development, engineering, financial analysis, scientific, and business-critical tasks. The product also offered 32-bit performance improvements and better application support, including support for NetWare file and print servers. Other improved productivity features included the capability to use friendlier, long file names of up to 255 characters.

1995: Windows 95 Windows 95 was the successor to the three existing general-purpose desktop operating systems from Microsoft—Windows 3.1, Windows for Workgroups, and MS-DOS. Windows 95 integrated a 32-bit TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol) stack for built-in Internet support, dial-up networking, and new Plug and Play capabilities that made it easy for users to install hardware and software. The 32-bit operating system also offered enhanced multimedia capabilities, more powerful features for mobile computing, and integrated networking.

1996: Windows NT Workstation 4.0 This upgrade to the Microsoft business desktop operating system brought increased ease of use and simplified management, higher network throughput, and tools for developing and managing intranets. Windows NT Workstation 4.0 included the popular Windows 95 user interface yet provided improved networking support for easier and more secure access to the Internet and corporate intranets. In October 1998, Microsoft announced that Windows NT would no longer carry the initials NT and that the next major version of the business operating system would be called Windows 2000.

1998: Windows 98 Windows 98 was the upgrade from Windows 95. Described as an operating system that "Works Better, Plays Better," Windows 98 was the first version of Windows designed specifically for consumers. With Windows 98, users could find information more easily on their PCs as well as the Internet. Other ease-of-use improvements included the ability to open and close applications more quickly, support for reading DVD discs, and support for universal serial bus (USB) devices.

1999: Windows 98 Second Edition Windows 98 SE, as it was often abbreviated, was an incremental update to Windows 98. It offered consumers a variety of new and enhanced hardware compatibility and Internet-related features. Windows 98 SE helped improve users' online experience with the Internet Explorer 5.0 browser technology and Microsoft Windows NetMeeting® 3.0 conferencing software. It also included Microsoft DirectX® API 6.1, which provided improved support for Windows multimedia, and offered home networking capabilities through Internet connection sharing (ICS). Windows 98 SE was also the first consumer operating system from Microsoft capable of using device drivers that also worked with the Windows NT business operating system.

2000: Windows Millennium Edition (Windows Me) Designed for home computer users, Windows Me offered consumers numerous music, video, and home networking enhancements and reliability improvements. For example, to help consumers troubleshoot their systems, the System Restore feature let users roll back their PC software configuration to a date or time before a problem occurred. Windows Movie Maker provided users with the tools to digitally edit, save, and share home videos. And with Microsoft Windows Media® Player 7 technologies, users could find, organize, and play digital media easily. Windows Me was the last Microsoft operating system to be based on the Windows 95 code base. Microsoft announced that all future operating system products would be based on the Windows NT and Windows 2000 kernel.

2000: Windows 2000 Professional More than just the upgrade to Windows NT Workstation 4.0, Windows 2000 Professional was also designed to replace Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows NT Workstation 4.0 on all business desktops and laptops. Built on top of the proven Windows NT Workstation 4.0 code base, Windows 2000 added major improvements in reliability, ease of use, Internet compatibility, and support for mobile computing. Among other improvements, Windows 2000 Professional simplified hardware installation by adding support for a wide variety of new Plug and Play hardware, including advanced networking and wireless products, USB devices, IEEE 1394 devices, and infrared devices.

2001: Windows XP With the release of Windows XP in October 2001, Microsoft merged its two Windows operating system lines for consumers and businesses, uniting them around the Windows 2000 code base. The "XP" in Windows XP stands for "experience," symbolizing the innovative experiences that Windows can offer to personal computer users. With Windows XP, home users can work with and enjoy music, movies, messaging, and photos with their computer, while business users can work smarter and faster, thanks to new technical-support technology, a fresh user interface, and many other improvements that make it easier to use for a wide range of tasks.

2001: Windows XP Professional Windows XP Professional brings the solid foundation of Windows 2000 to the PC desktop, enhancing reliability, security, and performance. With a fresh visual design, Windows XP Professional includes features for business and advanced home computing, including remote desktop support, an encrypting file system, and system restore and advanced networking features. Key enhancements for mobile users include wireless 802.1x networking support, Windows Messenger, and Remote Assistance.

2001: Windows XP Home Edition Windows XP Home Edition offers a clean, simplified visual design that makes frequently used features more accessible. Designed for home users, the product offers such enhancements as the Network Setup Wizard, Windows Media Player, Windows Movie Maker, and enhanced digital photo capabilities.

2001: Windows XP 64-bit Edition Windows XP 64-Bit Edition satisfies the needs of power users with workstations that use the Intel Itanium 64-bit processor. The first 64-bit client operating system from Microsoft, Windows XP 64-Bit Edition is designed for specialized, technical workstation users who require large amounts of memory and floating point performance in areas such as movie special effects, 3D animation, engineering, and scientific applications.

2002: Windows XP Media Center Edition For home computing and entertainment, Microsoft released the Windows XP Media Center Edition operating system in October 2002 for specialized media center PCs. With all the benefits of Windows XP Professional, Media Center Edition adds fun digital media and entertainment options, enabling home users to browse the Internet, watch live television, communicate with friends and family, enjoy digital music and video collections, watch DVDs, and work from home.

2002: Windows XP Tablet PC Edition The long-held industry vision of mainstream pen-based computing became a reality when Microsoft unveiled the Windows XP Tablet PC Edition in November, 2002. The logical evolution of notebook computers, Tablet PCs include a digital pen for handwriting recognition capabilities, yet can be used with a keyboard or mouse, too. In addition, users can run their existing Windows XP applications. The result is a computer that is more versatile and mobile than traditional notebook PCs.

Works Cited:

Ichbiah, D., & Knepper, S. L. (1991). The Making of Microsoft (pp. 174-196). Rocklin, CA: Prima Publishing.

Microsoft Corporation. (2002, June 30). Windows History: Windows Desktop Products History. Retrieved June 13, 2010, from http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryDesktop.mspx

Wiki Entry #3: Tagging

What is a tag and how is it used?

Gillin (2007) stated a tag is a keyword label that a user can assign to online content. “Tags can be used to categorize, sort and search information and can also be shared to help others find related content” (p. 222).

The best way that I can describe tagging, is that it’s a type of online classification system. In order to better describe tagging, Paul Gillin describes it as the Dewey Decimal System for the Internet. He says the only difference is that while a book could be in only one place at a time, tags can be used to “shelve” something in many different places at once (Gillin, 2007).

It’s common for bloggers and web publishers to use tags as a way to self-classify their information. These tags are stored in a data base and linked to the source. The information can be found again by searching one or more of the keywords that were tagged, and this system allows others to find this information as well if they search using those keywords.

Often times, a blogger will have a tag list that shows all of the different topics that they have blogged about. They can post this blog list on their own site or on a community bookmarking site. Sometimes this tag list will have numbers next to each topic, indicating how many times the topic has been written about by the author. Other times, the list may be presented in a “tag cloud” which consists of a bunch of words in a varying size type. The larger the type size of the word, the more often the author writes about that particular topic.

Information retrieval from tagging systems can be a complex task for several reasons. One of the major problems associated with tagging is that there is no current tagging system that has synonyms control(Hatzipanagos, S., & Warburton, S., 2009). It’s also important to note that there is no standardized list of tags, and that any user can tag any item anyway that he or she sees fit, including misspelling words during the tagging process. Unfortunately, this means that it’s possible to miss out on important information in a tag search if the author did not use the appropriate tag categories to describe the content.

Although many Web search engines and directories support tags, del.icio.us is the best known. On del.icio.us, users are able to easily bookmark and tag items they find on the Web. After tagging, they also have the option to share these tags selectively with other users or allow anyone to see them. This method of tagging is called a collaborative tagging system.

Hatzipanagos, S., & Warburton, S.,(2009) defined the Collaborative Tagging System as follows: “Collaborative tagging (also known as folksonomy, social classification, social indexing and other names) is the practice and method of collaboratively creating and managing tags to annotate and categorize content” (p.131).

Now that we know what tagging is, why is tagging important to the history of the digital age?

Basically, I think that tagging is so important to the digital age because the internet is a vast space full of so much information that it’s often times hard to sort through it all. Tagging is one way that is allowing people to begin to organize through the chaos because when people search keywords that have been tagged by other sites, it allows search engines to pick up on those sites. Thus, tagging enables more internet users to find the information that they are looking for and even connect with those that may be interested in similar information.

Works Cited:

Gillin, P. (2007). The New Influencers: A Marketer's Guide to the New Social Media (pp. 169-222). Sanger, CA: Quill Driver Books/Word Dancer Press, Inc.

Hatzipanagos, S., & Warburton, S. (2009). Social Software and Developing Community Ontologies . Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

Wiki Article #1: Social Software Transforms Education

ABSTRACT

This article considers how social software is affecting the social institution of education. The article introduces different case and research studies regarding the integration of social software into the higher education curriculum. While many students have already explored social software on their own time, it’s still a relatively new concept to have it be paired with their learning processes. As such, this article will also explore the benefits of social software and education, the consequences/fears of social software and education, and also point out how students want higher education to utilize social software and what universities are already doing to incorporate it.

SOCIAL SOFTWARE TRANSFORMS THE INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

New computer technology has transformed our culture enabling people to interact and connect within social institutions in a way that was not possible in the past. This article will take an in-depth look at the current transformation that the social institution of education is undergoing due to new-age technologies online.

Education was greatly impacted by the advent of the Internet. Prior to access on the Internet, encyclopedias were the main reference source to find information or look up facts. If you could not afford encyclopedias, you went to the library to use the reference section and often required the support of the local librarian. The Internet totally revolutionized learning. No longer did you get most of your learning from textbooks or reference books, you were able to access search engines such as Yahoo or Google to look up varied information. Students and adults alike were able to type in a few key words and find the answer to almost any question. Teachers also began to use search engines to find quick references in the classroom. So began the age of e-learning, which is defined as, “learning mediated through electronic means, usually over the Internet.” (Hatzipanagos, S. and Warburton, S. 2009).

Today, social software is equally transforming the field of online learning. Social software has enabled a collective online learning community. “The popular term social software combines internet applications like social networking sites (ex. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn), Weblogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and others.” (Bueschel, 2009). Through the use of social software, students learn from each other while participating in varied discussions relevant to their interests or coursework requirements.

In order to focus more on the current history of education tied in with current computer technology, we must look to the past to see how far we have come. Educational experiences of the past did not include the use of much technology beyond a mimeograph machine or an overhead. To briefly summarize, past generations of students were taught in more traditional ways.

To benefit from the knowledge of the teacher, students had to physically attend class, and complete the majority of their assignments in class or after school. Assessments were delivered in class where students worked individually to exhibit mastery the concepts presented. After school, students could not benefit from the aid of the teacher because there was no way to reach the teacher. Parents often felt this frustration when concepts were above their educational level. As a result, most learning typically started in the classroom and ended in the classroom. Today, this is no longer the case. Current computer technology, particularly social software, is literally transforming the social institution of education as we speak.

In order to better discuss the impact of this technology on the institution of education, I will bear in mind three questions:

1) How have universities and educators begun to incorporate social software into their curriculum and how has this benefited students?

2) How do students want to incorporate social software into the educational institution?

3) What concerns do educators have in regards to the implementation of social software into the educational institution?

More and more educational institutions are beginning to see the benefit of implementing social software as part of their educational program. One example occurred at Drexel University where chemistry professor, JeanClaude Bradley, launched a wiki and a blog to support what he termed the Open Notebook Science Initiative (Lamont, 2010). He used the wiki and the blog to create data related to the ongoing research available so others could examine, question, and contribute to the project. Bradley found this sharing of information beneficial stating, “They [fellow colleagues and students] sometimes find errors, which is the benefit of open science (Lamont, 2010). By keeping all of the work readily available online, through the wiki and blog other people are able to look at it and help progress the current research because many more eyes are looking at and reviewing the data.

Another example occurred at Boston College where professor John Gallaugher employed the use of Socialtext to support classroom collaboration. Gallaugher (Lamont, 2010) believed that by harnessing the intellect of students, the classroom experience could be richer and more productive. Gallaugher implemented Socialtext and required students to create wiki pages for each of the firms they were studying. Each wiki page was the student’s research on the firm and provided links to relevant reading about that firm. Throughout the class, students were able to ensure that information was current and could instantly update each other on current events associated with the firms by posting content on the wiki page. At the end of the course, students had a permanent record of their accomplishments on the wiki, and Gallaugher was able use the wiki from previous classes to set the bar for new classes.

Homik and Melis (2006) conducted a study on the use of blogging in relation to class content. In their research, they found that, “Blogging can support learning in a number of ways in higher education. Educators viewing blogging from a constructivist learning framework perceive blogs as having the potential to offer students a place to keep a learning log.” (Homik and Melis, 2006).

Another study completed by Wandal (2007) surveyed universities about how they were utilizing social networking sites to interact with their students. The survey administered to over 1000 higher educational universities produced the following benefits for those universities that had incorporated online social networking sites. 83.3% of the universities utilized online social networking sites to publicize student organizations. 56.5% planned campus programs using the online site. Announcing upcoming events & deadlines/university calendar were completed by 51.6% of the universities. 19% publicized non-university events on the social networking sites. 12.4% used social networking sites to provide information to current students regarding academics. A small portion, 9.9% even used the sites to recruit new students. 7.1% used social networking sites for alumni relations and another .8% used the sites for fundraising. 6.3% used the sites for retention efforts. Finally, 1.3% used social networking sites to distribute information to faculty, administrators, and staff (Wandel, 2007).

Being a student in this new era of e-learning, I am able to bring in my own firsthand experience as well. In high school, except for the use of internet search engines, I was not exposed to any type of social software when it came to my educational experience. Upon attending college at Michigan State University, I became familiar with the online learning system known as ANGEL, which incorporates various resources for students such as announcements and online lessons and has the ability for ongoing communication with professors through e-mail and message boards.

Even more recently, I have been exposed to class blogs and class wikis. Class blogs are an online discussion forum. Teachers have posed blog questions where students are required to answer the question and comment on other student’s responses. A blog is, “a series of entries posted to a single website page in reverse-chronological order” (Gillin, 2007). The blogs simulate class discussions without being in the physical classroom. Because students are commenting on blogs, ideas can flow freely and viewpoints can be shared without malice or intent. A wiki is, “a server program that allows users to collaborate in forming the content of a website” (Gillin, 2007). Wikis allow for the free exchange of ideas to make a website more interactive between classmates. I have also been encouraged by several professors to contact them through social media sites rather than using more traditional forms of internet communication such as e-mail. One requirement for my advertising class was to set up a Twitter account and follow the class on Twitter in order to stay updated on class announcements by reading what the course professor ‘tweeted.’ It is really a very exciting time for learning because there are so many different social software venues to explore. Learning can truly happen around the clock because students have many different ways of staying connected to the course material and the professor when outside of the actual classroom.

As we have seen from these case and research studies, social software is having quite an impact on education. In response to the relationship between social software and education, Ross Mayfield, president and co-founder of social text stated, “when students can search profiles, ask questions and access real-time information, they have learning at their fingertips in a way they never had before” (Lamont, 2010).

Students have the ability to access the Internet from multiple devices such as a computer, cell phone, or I-Pad. With this instant access to the Internet, educational institutions must work to meet the needs of their students or be left behind. Classrooms are incorporating websites as their primary sources for instruction. Students have access to the World Wide Web twenty-four hours a day. This access comes with the opportunity to broaden the learning environment but it also means more regulation on the part of the teacher or classroom instructor. Educators see this as an opportunity to connect with students using the technology that they are currently exploring themselves. In many cases particularly in the formative years, student’s knowledge of computers and their abilities exceeds that of the teachers who have been in the field for many years.

“Knowing the growing popularity of Millenials (individuals born between 1981 and 2000) to utilize online social networking sites, it is not surprising that higher education administrators are beginning to view these networks as valid mechanisms to reach student audiences, including prospective students” (Romm-Livermore and Setzekorn, 2009). Universities such as Walden and Phoenix offer undergraduate and graduate program that are accessed and delivered completely online. Students use chat rooms and discussion boards to respond to questions and share information. This new age of learning enables any individual to successfully complete college coursework without ever leaving the confines of their own home.

According to Wandal (2007) “The use and need of technology by higher education administrators is as altered as the expectations and usage of technology changes by students.” A recent study polled prospective college students in order to determine their reaction to using web-based applications in college. The findings are reported below:

• 72% have or would like to exchange instant messages with an admissions counselor or student worker

• 72% have or would like to complete a form to RSVP for a campus event

• 70% have or would like to inquire online

• 64% have or would like to read profiles of faculty

• 64% have or would like to e-mail a faculty member

• 64% have or would like to read a blog written by a member of the faculty

• 63% have or would like to read a blog written by a current student

• 63% have or would like to view a virtual tour

• 62% have or would like to personalize a Website (meaning they received a unique experience based on information supplied)

• 61% have or would like to e-mail current students from the site (Noel-Levitz, 2006)

These findings easily indicate that students are willing to accept online interaction in their educational experience. Clearly, “Online social networking may prove to be an invaluable tool in assisting students who are easing into college life” (Wandal, 2007).

However, in addition to the benefits, there are concerns to think about as well when implementing social software into the educational process. It was noted that, “From a higher education perspective, a plethora of considerations exist when students, administrators and educators are involved with online social networks” (Wandal, 2009). The perceived concerns of using online social networking sites include privacy issues, student safety, liability issues concerning alcohol or drug abuse, legal responsibility, freedom of speech issues, difficulty regulating the posting of information, postings may create social disruptions on campus, student access (or lack of) to computers (Wandel, 2007).

The research conducted by Wandel (2007) found that the top three biggest concerns of online social networking sites perceived by educators were privacy issues at 84.6%, student safety at 78.1%, and liability issues concerning alcohol or drug abuse at 69.5%. Privacy issues can be a big concern because if private and personal information is posted online about educators or students, it is up there for the whole world to see. Also, many universities have implemented strict alcohol and drug policies for their students. Students that post pictures of underage drinking or illegal drug use on social media sites can then be held accountable for this if they university comes across this on their profiles.

In addition to concerns for students, educators also have to be careful about how they use social software because they represent the university. Some colleges have even adopted policies for utilizing social software. For example, Roger Williams University formally adopted a social networking and blogging policy in 2007 for their faculty and staff when using a university e-mail. Activities not permitted by this policy included posting items anonymously or under a pseudonym, conducting personal social relationships unrelated to University activities, using and creating an account with dating and/or matchmaking sites, engaging in partisan political fundraising activity, engaging in online gambling, posting comments or writing blogs that are obscene or untrue, using social networking sites or blog postings to harass others, and selling goods or services for personal financial profit. (Roger Williams University, 2007)

Although universities certainly have reservations about using social software, they realize that it can be very beneficial to students as well because it allows them to maintain better communication with teachers and classmates, and have multiple resources right at their fingertips when it comes time to study and learn on their own.

As far as the pairing of internet technology and education goes, I believe social software will become even more incorporated in the near future because of the excellent benefits to students. Abbott and Alder (2009) said it best in the following statement, “Social networking offers an unparalleled opportunity to education, although this is not without concomitant risk and concerns. To ignore social networking and what it has to offer would not only by short-sighted but would also indicate a basic failure to understand the impossibility of returned to a pre-Internet world.” Most professors are barely tapping into the resources available through social software. By utilizing social software, a more shared learning environment can be created where student’s expertise and skill in networking will be revised and honed.

Social software clearly benefits students, and by implementing it into the curriculum educators are not only providing a more collaborative learning environment for their students, but are also exposing them to the technological skills they will need in future careers. In the digital era we live in today, it’s imperative that students are introduced to the technologies like social software so they can hone these skills that they will need in the job market. “Use of social software will not provide all the answers, but it goes a long way in supporting education and innovation to a level that was not possible previously” (Lamont, 2010).

References:

Abbott, C., & Alder, W. (2009). Social Networking in Schools: Early Responses and Implication for Practice. Social Software and Developing Community Ontologies. Hershey, Pennsylvania: Information Science Reference.

Beuschel, W. (2003). From Face-to-Face to Virtual Space—The importance of informal aspects of communication in virtual learning environments. In U. Hoppe, B. Wasson, & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2003)—Designing for Change in Networked Learning Environments (pp. 229-238). Bergen/Norway.

Gillin, P. (2007). The New Influencers: A Marketer's Guide to the New Social Media (pp. 219-223). Sanger, CA: Quill Driver Books/Word Dancer Press, Inc.

Hatzipanagos, S., & Warburton, S. (2009). In Social Software and Developing Community Ontologies. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

Homik, M., & Melis, E. (2006). Using Blogs for Learning Logs. In Proceedings of ePortfolio, Oxford UK.

Lamont, J. (2010). Expediting education- Blogs and Wikis go to college. KM World, 19(5). Retrieved July 1, 2010, from ProQuest.

Noel-Levitz. (2006). E-Expectations class of 2007 Report: Engaging the “social networking” generation. Retrieved June 15, 2007, from http://www.noellevitz.com

Roger Williams University. Policies: Social Networking/Blogging. Retrieved July 3, 2007, from http:www.rwu.edu/newsandevents/publicaffairs/policies/socialnetwork.htm

Romm-Livermore, Celia, and Kristina Setzekorn. Social Networking Communities and E-Dating Services. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference, 2009. Print.

Wandel, T. (2007, July). Educational institution responses to online social networking. Paper presented at the World Communication Association Conference. Brisbane, Australia.