The Native Tongue of Teens: Social Media

No Gravatar

(This was posted June 5, 2009 on my blog “Positively Media” at PsychologyToday.com)

Ralph Waldo Emerson said:

“No man should travel until he has learned the language of the country he visits. Otherwise he voluntarily makes himself a great baby – so helpless and so ridiculous.”

Think of the tech-saavy younger generation as another country with a different language. Their lives are inseparable from technology and they are connected to each other and to information flows in ways many of us will never understand. We can learn to speak their language or we can look ridiculous and irrelevant.

No where is learning to speak the language of technology more important than when you’re trying to educate young people. At a time when one in five American students drops out of high school, we parents and educators need to work on our language skills. This is why I love to see educational institutions embrace media technologies. At Azusa Pacific University (APU), my friend David Peck is leading a team doing some really cool things to connect with this generation of digital natives by creating conversations in the language of the users. Sounds simple enough, but it is surprisingly rare.

APU is smartly and simply integrating game play and information delivery. Their website contains games starring Stickman Bob where you must protect the campus from comets and, although I am embarrassed to say that I destroyed the campus several times due to my lack of gaming skills, I now know what the Cougar Dome and Wilden Hall look like and I’ve never been to APU. After flattening the place, I also feel a little responsible for the protection of the campus. Pretty good emotional engagement for 15 minutes of play.

Games like Stickman Bob can also normalize experiences, such as the anxiety of the admissions and entry process, such as where you help Stickman Bob dodge crazed admissions counselors by leaping wildly and arming him with book bags. (I’m sorry to say that my Stickman Bob was resoundingly trampled.) This injection of humor allows APU to humanize their institution. They also invite engagement by letting you customize your own personal Stickman Bob avatar (in either gender) and keep track of your score. And they don’t stop there. You can “Join the Stickman Bob Facebook Group” or Twitter your opinions to @azusapacific. While marketers will be all excited about the website’s “stickiness” (ability to hold visitor’s attention), the real value comes in the brand perception of APU and in beginning to build a relationship with prospective students that will last long beyond graduation. These games are the equivalent of saying “Hey, we get you!” If it were my school, I’d put Stickman Bob on the home page.

As technologies emerge, the boundaries between platforms become more porous and things cross over. Think texting your Twitters and iPhoning your Facebook page. What many consider to be Internet applications are hitting the road. Mobile devices are an under-25 appendage and Blackberries and iPhones are no longer the tools of tech-dilettantes and Type A workaholics. In the summer of 2008, Hot Lava Software working with the Kauffman Foundation used the ubiquity of mobile devices to deliver Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics education as a ‘Sports Bytes’ contest to teens’ mobile phones with the hope of sparking their interest in the math and science at a time when many teens turn away. They asked questions like: Which ball has the slower speed when thrown: a softball or a baseball? Over 70,000 teens registered to play over the series of sporting events.

Teaching mobile game development is also emerging as a motivational tool to engage students, according to researchers like Kurkovsky, and can help students see the connections between Computer Science and real-world technology.

Where many educators demand the incapacitation of mobile devices during class, schools like APU have faculty that say “Turn on your cell phones. Text me with questions.” They are actively going mobile with access to school information like sports scores and calendars available to students via mobile devices with plans to integrate administrative chores. Compared to India, however, the US is a bit behind in adoption of mobile applications. New startups are doing everything from introducing mobile-based English language classes to companies like Find Guru who developing online classroom where you can get connected with teachers, assignments and texts. Love me, love my technology.

The brilliance of these projects, and the hopefully many like them, is that they aren’t using technology to replicate current educational experiences. They are using the technology to support ways of motivating and connecting with kids in the language they use every day. Not only will using technology help motivate and engage kids, it is also the only way to prepare them for problem-solving for jobs that haven’t been invented yet in a world full of technology.

Kurkovsky, S. (2009). Engaging students through mobile game development. SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 44-48.
Photos: APU Public Relations, iStockphoto.com

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Twitter and Goliath

No Gravatar

This was posted April 13, 2009 on my blog “Positively Media” at Psychology Today.

First it was “Dell Hell” and now it is “#AmazonFail.” For all the debates over the purpose, point, and value of social media, it is events like these that illustrate how important they have become and how powerful they can be.

“Dell Hell” is one of the iconic stories in the history of social media sending an emphatic message that consumers have a new power. In June 2005, blogger Jeff Jarvis shared his less than satisfactory experience with Dell’s customer service on his blog “Buzz Machine” with the title “Dell Hell.” (This story is documented in a number of places, including the books Groundswell and Citizen Marketers, both quite interesting.)  The reach of Jarvis’ blog got his story out there, but the fact that his experience resonated with so many other Dell customers coupled with the system properties of the Internet sent the story viral, ending up not only all over the web but in the New York Times and Business Week. Dell had quite a wake-up call that resulted in substantial internal changes.2009-04-13-amazon-failwhale

To quote Yogi Berra, we’re having déjà vu all over again and Amazon gets to learn Dell’s lesson.

For those of you who haven’t been following the Amazon story, the company recently revised its ranking system. The system, like Google’s search algorithms, causes search results to be based not just on content match but also on popularity. An Amazon ranking is very important to authors because it allows their titles to appear on bestseller lists.

The furor began on Live Journal, when author Mark Probst noticed that the ranking had been removed from his young-adult novel with a gay character. As Probst remarked in his blog, he checked other gay titles and found that they too had been de-ranked. The story on his blog was picked up and reported on Twitter with the hashtag #amazon fail. (The hashtag is an identifier that tags Twitter posts to make them searchable.) Twitters and retweets (resending someone’s tweet) spread the information that Amazon had stripped the sales ranking from adult content (no pun intended). Although the de-ranking was intended to be targeted at all adult content, the result was the deletion of rankings from hundreds of gay and lesbian books while overlooking quite a bit of heterosexual lit-porn. The story and outrage reverberated through Twitter with #amazonfail quickly becoming the number one word on Twitter.

People began to collect lists of books of questionable content. Carolyn Kellogg on the The LA Times blog Jacket Copy reported that the sadistic murder story “American Psycho” remained ranked while the well-reviewed nonfiction work “Unfriendly Fire,” about the scoial costs of the current gay ban in the military, lost theirs. An online petition ensued.

New tools in the distribution arsenal since Dell’s misadventure, such as Google Bombs, were organized and deployed. Google bombs are a collective effort of people to link to specific words so that they disrupt the Google search and come up first. In this case the words are “Amazon Rank,” taking searchers to an explanation of Amazon’s transgression. The story of Amazon Rank reached epic proportions in little over a day.

Amazon reported that this was an unfortunate computer error. Many, but not all, are skeptical. At the least, this episode has raised issues about Amazon’s control and the transparency of the de-ranking process. Either way, social media has scored another victory for the little guy by proving that individuals have a voice and can make a difference.

The moral of the story is that the power has shifted from a one-to-many to many-to-many model, as Clay Shirky discusses in Here Comes Everybody. This means that not just as customers, but as citizens, we can and do get involved and make our voices heard in response to perceived abuses of power. The conversation can go global at any time and it just doesn’t matter anymore who starts it. Because of the way we, are tied together as nodes in a system, something as innocuous as a Tweet can trigger a cascade of information across the network. That one Twitterer now has the potential to create social change.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Why LinkedIn Works: The Strength of Weak Ties

No Gravatar

From Advertising Age: LinkedIn Skyrockets as Job Losses Mounts. The impressive rise in LinkedIn participation shows the power of social media and the cognitive shift from hunting for “jobs” to connecting with people. Good time to reread Granovetter’s “The Strength of Weak Ties” or Barabasi’s Linked: How Everything Is Connected to Everything Else and What It Means.  These should be required reading for anyone working with or interested in social media applications. (BTW, Linked is available in audio for commuters and aural learners.) The strength of weak ties was one of the seminal papers in the development of network theory to social processes. Both Granovetter’s paper, and Barabasi’s book, which takes a broader look at the development of network theory, explain why social media networks have such tremendous reach and power, and why LinkedIn is such an effective resource for career change and employment opportunities. Granovetter’s original paper was published in 1973. A 1983 version where Granovetter reviews studies tested and elaborated on his hypothesis “The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited” is available on the web if you Google it.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Overview of Online Media

No Gravatar

I was doing some research on social media and Web 2.0 and came across this nice little overview video of online media.


The Online Media from RealWire on Vimeo.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The Digital Social “Me”

No Gravatar

I sat with a group of educators, marketers, public relations professionals, investor relations professionals, and web developers yesterday talking about how to develop a graduate level program focused on social media. This was especially interesting because as the only psychologist, my vantage point was quite different. Where marketers talk about metrics and stats in media use, I wonder about how people interpret or make meaning out of the experience. To me, the metrics might show if the net result is positive or negative but they don’t illuminate much under the hood. I always enjoy it when I get to see a different way of looking at something or thinking about something by talking with smart people. The discussions also reinforce my opinion that effective media applications come from a multi-disciplinary foundation.

One topic of discussion was, what does a program focused on social media even mean? What is social media? Is it the same as Web 2.0? Is it part of Web 2.0? Will anyone who might be interested in the program recognize what it’s about from these labels?

This got me thinking about identity (which is just another word for branding, even though it’s most often applied to people). I define Web 2.0 as when technology went interactive rather than being a unidirectional experience. No matter how you define Web 2.0, the existence of 2.0 means establishing a common term is both more important and harder than it’s ever been. This is because the world is networked. You don’t have to work hard at achieving a definition among a few geographically proximate folks with similar life experiences. With Web 2.0 connectivity, the flood gates are open to ideas, experiences, assumptions, and beliefs of all kinds.

Creating commonalities is a distinctly human activity. It satisfies to very basic hard-wired human needs: order and social contact. Social media is one of the ways people come together to find commonalities and create communities and groups.

We all know that today’s kids have experiences that we did not have growing up. Most of them are impacted by some kind of technology. Facebook is essentially the “Youth Activity Center” at my high school. It was public in that anyone in the high school could attend, but it was private because you hung out with your friends in your section of the place, clearing defining your group identity with your clothes, hair, and various other behavioral accoutrements of teenageness. I came across this lecture by danah boyd at the Handheld Learning 2008 Conference. (FYI – the conference site is also very cool with videos of many speakers and is definitely worth checking out.) Danah’s area of expertise is social media–she talks about her research findings and impression of the way social media provides what I think of as the digital construction of identity–how social media sites in particular, but digital representations of individuals in general, display an incredibly rich tableau of information about an individual, what is important to him/her, how he/she want to be seen, their environmental and social context, These identities are essentially narratives that, while public, are distinctly targeted to their audience and consequently tell as about the audience as about the individual.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Copyright © · Media Psychology Research Center · on WordPress ·