Age and creativity

Posted on June 23, 2014 by knlistman

aged023The very act of creativity means producing results that don’t resemble those produced by others. There is no easy way to arrive at a number for creativity. Instead a group of people, respected in the particular field, must view and judge the entire body of work from an extensive the sample in order to rank individual works. This kind of assessment is not easy to perform.

For example, in a recent joint study by Harvard and University of Washington (Davis and Weinstein, 2013) the researchers compared samples of visual art and creative writing by teenagers published between 1990 and 2011 to determine if creativity was increasing or decreasing.  Their conclusion was improvement existed in visual work, which showed greater sophistication and complexity, and a decline in the writing, which became simpler and more mundane. Davis concluded that “there are markers of creativity — like complexity and risk-taking and breaking away from the standard mold — that appear to have changed.” However, only fifty examples of writing were reviewed.[1]

Judging by actual products also changes the findings of creativity based on age. Children are not known for producing masterpieces of art, literature or music. But neither are elderly people. Lehman, (1962) found creative achievement in the arts was a bell curve with a single-peak as a function of age. Most writers produced their greatest work by age 45, but poets tended to peak as early as their thirties.[2]

Simonton’s study of the lives of creative geniuses led him to conclude that poets and mathematicians tend to peak the earliest of the disciplines in producing creative work.  Anyone who had studied English literature may recall that the many of the romantic period poets didn’t live past their thirties. There are exceptions to this trend for poets of course, such as  Robert Frost whose most well known work were written in his late forties and after.  Yet each of these had a time when their creative production rose fairly rapidly and then declined until their death. Novelists, philosophers and biologists seem to peak later and decline more slowly. This difference may be a result of the complexity of the product and ambiguity of their fields.[3]

Just as there is no single factor contributing to the creativity of individuals, there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to age and creativity. There are just trends that may not always hold true, because as all creative people know, rules are meant to be broken.

[1]Kelley, P. A decline in creativity? It depends on how you look, University of Washington News and Information, November 14, 2013
[2] Lehman, H. C. (1962). More about age and achievement. Gerontologist, 2, 141-148.
[3] Lehrer, J. ” Old Writers,” The Frontal Cortex, Posted on June 15, 2010
Posted in Creativity | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Is creativity on a downhill slide?

Posted on June 17, 2014 by knlistman

02Just as the business world seems to be competing to attract creative workers, students’ scores on tests of creative thinking appear to be declining.

Education professor at the College of William and Mary Kyung Hee Kim analyzed scores from the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) for students from kindergarten through twelfth grade. According to Kim, normative scores on the TTCT began the downward slide in 1984 or shortly after. Student’s scores at all grade levels have been gradually going down in the United States since that time. This, steady decline, as opposed to a drastic drop,  is not necessarily related to number of years in school, as younger students creativity is also declining. The decrease is most evident in the ability to elaborate, or produce details that support the main creative idea.  [1].

Is there a connection between new “innovative” products, and the decline of innovation? The drive for creativity in business is aimed at bringing in greater profits. The new “innovative” products are largely electronics and the applications used on them. However, these two types of products are now so complex that most people do not use all of their capability. They have been that way for about as long as creativity has been declining.  

An innovative product does not sell itself. The consumer must be convinced that they “need” this product, which is accomplished through creative marketing.  For example, new electronics such as tablets and smart phones actually have less capability than computers. Therefore, people must  buy into the idea that mobile electronics are necessary. They must feel the need to be connected and have the ability to reach others on the internet and access the vast pool of data on the web at any time. People also want to look cool doing so. It not just the ease and portability of new electronics that boost sales, it is also their image.

But, the very selling point of these items, the ability to connect to others and access  information and entertainment instantly may be leading to the lowering of creativity in students. The constant data influx leads people to scanning. According to Nicholas Carr “When we go online, we enter an environment that promotes cursory reading, hurried and distracted thinking, and superficial learning.” [2]

Of course, students attending school in 1984 rarely had access to a computer at home. The major innovation in 1984 was the mouse driven Macintosh with the graphic user interface; allowing anyone, not just the tech-smart computer “geeks’ to use it. Availability and use of home computers took off rapidly from that point.

Ironically, 1984 is also the year the word “cyberspace” appeared in William Gibson’s novel, Neuromancer as the idea of an illusionary world of data streaming to humans by intelligent machines. And of course 1984 is the title of the famous dystopian novel by George Orwell (pen name of Eric Arthur Blair). 

The decline of creativity–does it go hand in hand with the creation of innovations that do our thinking for us?

[1] Kim, Kyung Hee (2011). The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 285-295.
[2] Carr, Nicholas (2010) The Web Shatters Focus, Rewires Brains | Magazine”. Wired.com. 2010-05-24. Retrieved 4 July 2010.
Posted in Creativity, Education trends | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Conforming to divergency

Posted on June 10, 2014 by knlistman

punk_edited-2My first experience with creative problem solving competitions involved a group of rather ambitious second graders. Rather than opting for the easier non-competitive primary challenge they insisted on a difficult one. They spent hours trying to build structures out of fragile materials such as thin balsa wood sticks and pasta that actually withstood some weight. Then, they had to come up with a performance to tie everything together. We largely ignored practicing for the spontaneous problem solving challenge.

They built a sturdy structure that received a higher score than students in grades above them. But, they scored last in the spontaneous problem solving challenge.  Afterwards we brainstormed on what went wrong.  They had been give a question, “What would you take on a trip to the moon?” Only one answer had been given more than the minimum point, and as they recalled only one answer had been completely “out there.” One girl wanted to bring a shopping mall to the moon.

These seconds graders were not lacking creativity as much as they lacked experience in what others perceived as creative. After they understood what was expected of them, their scores soared on spontaneous problem solving challenges. However,  I noticed that two of the students refused to give up practical answers and therefore did not come up with as many possible solutions. Restricting the search to an answer that really would work seemed to be a personal choice.

All of this musing on past experience with children and creativity brings me to a notion currently made popular by Sir Ken Robinson.  The idea is that children are born creative and the school systems educate the creativity out of them. After all his research shows that 98% of children age three to five are creative but only 2% of adults 25 year-olds are. [1] Actually only one research project showed this.  It was a 1968 study by George Lands described in Breaking Point and Beyond.

Most definitions of creativity include both originality and usefulness. Throwing usefulness out the window in a test of divergent thinking changes the results.  My second grade group learned how to increase their spontaneous problem solving scores not by being more creative, but by “conforming” to what the judges were seeking.  Children often respond the way that they think you want them to. If you want a large number of answers, they will readily “carpet bomb” without regard to how much sense each answer makes.

Other researchers have not replicated George Lands’ result of drastically reduced creativity in adults. A long term study of students who took the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking in the late fifties and early sixties found a significant correlation between children that scored high on the test and later real world creative achievement as adults (especially for  the males). [2] The creativity scores did show some fluctuation based on grade, but the percentage of creative younger students was not significantly greater than the percentage of older ones. Many of the younger students did not score as high. One reason that this differs from George Lands’ results is that Torrence’s test is not just a one dimensional test of divergent thinking.

So, if you read that research shows that children are born creative and it is educated out of them by society, read further. Creativity means coming up with ideas that are different from the rest of society, but also useful. If most children come up with random unsuitable responses to a questions, they are not being more creative, but rather imitating other children.

Photo credits: Immanuel Giel,  Niko punk, Puknáč, Quercusrobur  (CC by 3.0)
[1] From Glasgow, A conference in March, 2005, by the Scottish Book Trust, http://people.goshen.edu/~marvinpb/11-13-01/Effects-of-Stereotypes.html
[2] Mark A. Runco, Garnet Millar, Selcuk Acar, & Bonnie Cramond (2010) Torrance tests of creative thinking as predictors of personal and public achievement: A fifty-year follow-up.  Creativity Research Journal, 22, 361-368.
Posted in Creativity, Education trends | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Competitive disadvantage for creative women

Posted on May 27, 2014 by knlistman

510px-Defense.gov_photo_essay_080814-A-8804H-006 Every time I hear someone ask how to intrinsically motivate students, I have to laugh inside. The very definition of intrinsic means to come from inside of a person, not from an outside source, such as a teacher, instructor, trainer or anyone else employed in the field of getting people to learn. But maybe I should tell them that they need not worry about intrinsic motivation. Although it is touted as a way to improve learning, when it comes to improving one’s level of recognition in a field – even recognition for creative accomplishments – extrinsic motivation seems to trump strictly internal goals every time.

Consider the root of competitiveness.  People work harder to do something not just to excel in their own sight, but to be recognized by the public as better than someone else.  The Olympic medalist who bemoans winning silver may have spent months of solitary training, but the crushed expression at coming in second reveals the high level of extrinsic motivation involved.

Men seem to compete more readily than women. Evidently the male characteristic of trying harder if someone else is paying attention starts young. It is noticeable early in grade school (Gneezy 2002).  Not only do the males make more effort when competing, they are more willing to take the risks. Why? Because they typically predict that they will perform better than they actually do. (Niederle & Versterlund 2005).

Many societies have placed a premium on competition. Even creative individuals  in the arts and sciences must compete for resources with which to do their work.  These resources have been habitually controlled by men (Simonton 1994). The decision to award these resources in often based on competition, and with creativity of ideas being a particularly subjective judgment, resources are often awarded to the most competitive people.  People who promote themselves as being the best win – not necessarily the people who are the best (Gneezy 2002).

It becomes obvious how this tendency carries over into the creative fields. F. Barron’s (1972) study of young artists at the San Francisco Art Institute and at the Rhode Island School of Design yielded similar observations. When the students were asked if they thought their work was “particularly unique or good” 40% of the men and 17% of the women agreed. These statistics were basically reversed when he asked the flipped side of this, with 40% of the women and 14% of the men feeling that that their work was inferior to others at the institute. Interestingly, these were not real indications of quality. Overall the woman’s work was as high a quality as the men’s. Barron attributed this disparity to a difference in self image.

However, this self-image may be due to social conditioning, not innate differences between men and women. In the few matrilineal cultures in which women control the resources, they behave in a similar competitive manner to men of other cultures. (Gneezy & List 2013). It has often been noted that women can also be competitive. However, they tend to limit this to competition against other women, which is done in a more covert and less openly aggressive manner. To make an impact on the world with their creativity would require a different style of competitiveness. So what exactly occurs when women try this?

Photo: 2012 London Games. Defense.gov_photo_essay_080814-A-8804H-006.jpg/Public domain.

 

Barron, F. (1972) Artists in the Making. New York: Seminar Press
Gneezy, U. (2002) Gender and Competition, Do Competitive Environments Favor Men More Than Women? Capital Ideas, Vol. 4 No. 2 | Fall 2002
Gneezy, U. and List, J. (2013) Where Women Are More Competitive Than Men, Time
Niederle M., and Lise Versterlund, L. (2005) “Do Women Shy Away from Competition? Do Men Compete too Much?” NBER Working Paper Series, National Bureau of Economic Research , 1050 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138
Simonton, D. K. (1994). Greatness: Who makes history and why. New York: Guilford Press.
Posted in Creativity | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is there a hidden price in creativity for women?

Posted on May 20, 2014 by knlistman

Berlin12 116No matter how many different studies  are performed using different measurements in testing creativity for males and females there seems to be a consistent result. There is no difference.  Kogan (1974) found that when creativity test scores for students were compared girls had a slight advantage, so it is improbable that innate gender differences in creativity could explain why creative accomplishment of men heavily outweigh those of women. So what causes this imbalance?

  • Is it how society perceives men and women in creative fields?
  • Is it the perception that creative women have of themselves?

Of course perception is a delicate matter. Do we view ourselves as other’s see us, or do other’s see us as we view ourselves? Cause and effect are difficult to detangle.

Amabile  (1982) tested creativity hypotheses using products, not test, as measurement. Her “grading” technique was consensual assessment. Basically experts in the field of art, poetry and fiction judged the products, most of them agreeing on which were the best. The judges looked at products, but did not have information about the people creating them. Basically they found no difference in creativity between men and women. But while gender did not make a difference monetary reward did. In a later study (Amabile et al, 1986) she found that artists, who sometimes worked for commissions, were told they were producing for pay, they tended to make products that were less original.

Other researches did similar studies on how rewards affected creativity in students and noted that these results varied, based on the gender of the student. Baer (1998) had eighth grade girls and boys writing poetry simply for themselves and for the possible of a reward. The negative impact of the reward on originality was largely confined to the girls. Conti, Collins, and Picariello (2001) also discovered that that female subjects were less creative in competitive situations than male subjects. Finally Koestner, Zuckerman & Koestner (1989) research how specific and general praise affected the performance of college students.  using college students as subjects. Their conclusion? “Women tended to display more intrinsic motivation in the no-praise condition than in the two praise conditions, whereas men showed the reverse pattern.”

In each of these situations it would seem that the females do not lack creativity, but are de-motivated by the possibility of being recognized for it in competitive situations. Is there a price to be paid for this recognition that does not exist for males?

When Frank Barron interviewed artists at the San Francisco Art Institute and at the Rhode Island School of Design he found that women view their work with more detachment and less passion. Yet “when asked whether they would still paint if they had no results or success, only half the men said they would continue to paint, but all of the women did.” (Piirto, 200o) So although the dedication to art seemed weaker, the persistence was actually stronger.

The conclusion reached by Ruth & Birren (1985) is that women “appear more interested in the creative process itself than in its end-product. Women sometimes have difficulties in externalizing their inner creative processes or have a lower need of achievement in creative endeavors.” Is it simply a  matter of men putting more effort into gaining fame for their creative work because this extrinsic motivator drives them? Or do women sense a price to be paid if they continue producing more creatively and compete with men? As mentioned earlier, detangling cause and effect of perception is difficult, so I will continue to try, but may not be able to answer this question.

AMABILE, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997-1013.
AMABILE, T. M . Hennessey  B.A. & Grossman  B. S.(1986) Social Influences on Creativity: The Effects of Contracted-for Reward. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 14-23
BAER, J. (1998). Gender differences in the effects of extrinsic motivation on creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 32, 18-37.
CONTI, R., COLLINS, M., & PICARIELLO, M. (2001). The impact of competition on intrinsic motivation and creativity: Considering gender, gender segregation, and gender-role identity. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1273-1289.
KOESTNER, R., ZUCKERMAN, M., & KOESTNER, J. (1987). Praise ,involvement, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 383-390.
KOGAN, N. (1974). Creativity and sex differences. Journal of Creative Behavior, 8, 1-14.
PIIRTO, J. (2000) Why are there so few? (Creative women: Visual artists, mathematicians, scientists, musicians), Davidson Institute for Talent Development.
RUTH, J.-E., & BIRREN, J. E. (1985). Creativity in adulthood and old age: Relations to intelligence, sex and mode of testing. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 8, 99-109.

 

Posted in Creativity | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Making the choice

Posted on May 13, 2014 by knlistman

rocker aThis past Sunday was Mother’s Day in the United States. A holiday inspired by Anna Jarvis, an educator, editor and business woman who never married or became a mother herself. Instead Jarvis campaigned to honor her own mother, a socially active woman who had encouraged her to attended college.  Motherhood is an honored status in our society and one of the main reasons cited for the lack of creative women in the arts and sciences.

For women there looms an issue that men do not seem to face – the choice between a successful career and a family. Nowhere is this more evident than in fields of creative endeavor. Gilligan (1982) proposed that women often define themselves by relationships and their ability to care for others. There has been an unspoken rule in society that women are to put others first. Gilligan pointed out that conflict arises first in high school, where it is more acceptable for girls to be highly creative and then reappears again after college. [1]

Reis (1998) has found more recently that young gifted women do not believe they are going to face the barriers that previous generations of women encountered. However, they naively thought they could  begin a career, and then stop to marry and have children without any negative consequence to their career advancement. The creative women from their 20’s to 40’s in age that Reis studied realized that they had a finite amount of energy. If they worked on developing their own talents, those they loved would be affected in a negative way. Finding time to do their own work always resulted in compromise. [2]

According to Piirto (2000) “Few if any gender differences are found in creativity until after college, when women must decide how they will manage being mothers, wives, and creators. The double bind hits hard, and this gender difference cuts across all fields and domains. The men creators never seem to wonder how they will manage raising a family and having a career. The women creators always do. That is why many who reached prominence were childless and even lived alone, without a mate.”[3] …like Anna Jarvis did.

Anna Jarvis poured a huge amount of time and effort into her crusade, she even resigned her position as an editor. In 1914, Mother’s Day became a national holiday, and within a few years Jarvis became disillusioned at the commercialization of this day, and was openly critical of the floral and greeting card industries. There is always that possibility of pouring one’s whole life into an effort only to be disappointed. Maybe that is something that many creative women, who continue to struggle make time to care for a family and their own work, have always realized.

[1] Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[2] Reis, S. M. (1998). Work left undone: Compromises and challenges of talented females. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
[3] Piirto, J. (2000) Why are there so few? (Creative women: Visual artists, mathematicians, scientists, musicians), Davidson Institute for Talent Development.
Posted in Creativity | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Creative wiring

Posted on May 6, 2014 by knlistman

Tape_cubby_roseWhen it comes to creativity, evidently women’s appearance is important, far more than it should be. You will the large percent of  singers, actors, dancers that are women. Their numbers continue to grow because their career is typically shorter than for males. It begins declining in their mid-thirties because the bias against age is greater for women than men. It doesn’t take much thought to realize this is due to the premium placed on women’s appearance. According to a number of studies on creativity, this third decade is the peak time for creative production. But, moving from singer to songwriter, dancer to choreographer and actor to director becomes much more difficult for women than men. Also, many men continue careers in performance, and never make the switch into producing.

That is only one tiny fraction of the answer to the question “Why as there so few well-known creative females?” There are far fewer well known women writers, artists, and composers.

First, let’s look at the claim that there are differences between the minds of men and women. Read almost any lay person level discussion of the mind they will make all sorts of assertions about differences in male and female brains that really do not exist. There is some evidence that the average woman is slightly better at language processing and average men are slightly better at spatial and numerical processing. But any examination of the brain, through scans or testing, does not reveal the gender of the person.

Interestingly enough, the main creative field in which women are almost equally as well known as men is creative writing.  Helson’s study of the psychology of creative writers and mathematicians found that “creative male writers were more like creative women women writers…than they were like creative male mathematicians.” But although prolific, woman do not dominate the field of writing, despite slight advantage at processing language. They also tend to not be as highly regarded in art, and almost non-existent in music composition.

Getzels and Czikszentmihalyi  administered a battery of tests to female and males studying at the Art Institute of Chicago. They found that the females had much higher spatial ability than the average female. Their scores in spatial perception were close to the males students, who had a slightly higher spatial ability. When it came to personality assessments,  both groups were unconventional, imaginative and independent. In fact, the similarity went beyond that. The female artists tended to show more masculine values than their female peers in college, while the male artists showed more effeminate personalities traits than other male college students. This finding caused  these researches to conclude that “The psychology of creative men is a feminine psychology by comparison with less creative men; the psychology of creative women is a masculine psychology by comparison, with less creative women.”

In Priito’s studies of gifted females and male teenagers in music performance and composition, there was no significant difference between the personalities of the two groups. There is greater similarity between the mental processes and personalities of  men and  women in creative fields, than there is between creative person and the average Joe or Jane.

Photo by S.L. Listman
Piirto, J. (2000) Why are there so few? (Creative women: Visual artists, mathematicians, scientists, musicians), Davidson Institute for Talent Development
Posted in Creativity | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

To make or to show?

Posted on April 29, 2014 by knlistman

DSCN0562c2DSCN0656c

People often split creativity between the arts and sciences, placing painters, writers, composers, dancers and actors on one side, and biologist, chemists, mathematicians, psychologist and physicists on the other. There is another dichotomy apparent to anyone attempting  innovation–the split of designing and performing.

It is easier to see this split in the arts; the visual artist, composer, and writer are obviously designing works of art that they construct. The actor, musician, dancers are all performing, right? But there is an overlap. Conceptual visual artists will imagine original ideas, but the resulting tangible piece may not strike people as a great work of art. It is the explanation of the idea–the performance–that carries the conceptual artist into the creative limelight. I recall seeing one create portraits on a floor covered with wax paper by pouring chocolate syrup. Watching him in the act of creating was the intriguing part.

This also occurs in the sciences. Notable theorist, such as Albert Einstein, are known for their explanations of theories–abstract ideas that are not really observed or proven through experiments. They promote the theory through a series of logical arguments, and the ability to present is as important as the ability to produce proof or construct a sophisticated invention. Others through constant experimentation (or sometimes accidents as in the case of Louis Pasteur’s anthrax vaccine) produce new practical inventions.

Creative people often work on both sides of the split. Directors and actors who also write, musicians who play an instrument and compose. Inventors who initiate original ideas or who through their persistence and ability to gain backing produce another’s novel invention. Artist and scientists piggyback on the past to the point that it is difficult to determine who originated the “original” idea for which one person receives the credit.

After all  “there is nothing new under the sun.”

Photos By K.N. Listman

 

Posted in Creativity | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Is creativity in men and women different?

Posted on April 21, 2014 by knlistman

 

Telemachus_and_Mentor_crop

Yearn to be recognized for creative achievement? Over forty? You may be too late – unless you are female.  Creative production in a variety of fields – mathematics, medicine,  physics, psychology – increased until age 30 -39 and then hit a decline according to H. Lehman.[1]  D. K. Simonton  found the same to be true among composers and musicians and referred to it as the “swan song phenomenon.”  Later works by noted composers were considered less original even though they were often more popular with the audiences.[2] However, these studies used predominantly male populations for data.

Geoffrey Miller found that the peak age of creative output for most writers, painters and musicians was in their thirties and forties. However, Miller took his studies of  bit further due to interest in culture rather than creativity. Most of the earlier findings were based on populations that were primarily or exclusively male. Miller determined that female authors produced more work later. His research showed them to be slightly more productive in their fifties.[3]

Sally Reis has pointed out that the male concept of the creative process has been accepted as the standard. However, this standard may only apply to male creators. She found that creative women are frequently perfectionists. They attempt to expend maximum energy at all times. More women try to do everything and do it well.[4] This is in contrast to the more focused aim at specific achievement pursued by most males. Reis’ study of creative female mathematicians found that there was almost no difference between the genders on measures of intelligence and cognition. They tended to show “rebellious independence, introversion, and a rejection of outside influences.” However, females in mathematical  research activity were highly flexible and original, and less likely to accept outside influence than male peers. During interviews women explained that they often felt that they had no choice. Their drive to contribute was strong as their belief in their ability to do so. Some of them simply said, “Something inside of me had to come out.”[5]

[1] Lehman, H. (1953) Age and Achievement, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
[2] Simonton, D. K. (1989). The swan-song phenomenon: Last-work effects for 172 classical composers. Psychology and Aging,4,42-47
[3] Eds. Garibaldi, P. Joaquim Oliveira Martins, J.O., van Ours, J. The Grand View on Age and Productivity  in Ageing, Health, and Productivity: The Economics of Increased Life Expectancy. Oxford University Press. pg 155
[4] Reis, S. M.(1998). Work left undone. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
[5] Reis, S. M.(2002) Toward a Theory of Creativity in Diverse Creative Women,  Creativity Research Journal, University of Connecticut.
Posted in Creativity | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Learning through social networking media?

Posted on April 15, 2014 by knlistman

068 laptopIn the past with students glued to their phones rather than paying attention in class, teachers wondered if they could teach better using a social network. Social media may be useful, but the belief that everyone is using it sometimes lead to further exclusion.  MySpace (yes, it still exists) Snapchat, Tumblr, Reddit, DeviantArt, Pinterest even LinkedIn are chosen by some students rather than Facebook and Twitter, because of the different offerings and levels of complexity. The recent switch to distance learning for students has revealed the weakness of attempts to learn completely on-line.

Mimi Ito traced what teenagers and young adults did on social networking sites. Most of it was everyday social transactions, sharing entertaining moments, and self publicity. A few used sites to explore and gain new knowledge. She also noted that teenagers feel weird having adults on the social networking sites.[1]

Students need instruction on how to avoid pitfalls of using social media. It is the world where success is measured quantitatively, number of likes and hits – with actual impact remaining unknown. A easy and harmful way to to increase notoriety is by spreading lies and rumors. Teachers need to explain the consequences of this. There have been students who entered the  court system due to this kind of harassment. Students don’t seem to get away with the false rumor tactics that politicians pull. 

It’s not particularly wise to have students complete assignments on social networking sites, unless they are set up for education. Instead, they need to know how to use the sites. Students needing resources must determine which kind of sites best fit their goals. With the use of conferencing software, classes can even have “show and tell” times when describe what they have learned.  However, controlling the content shown to the virtual classroom, so that it is appropriate, requires monitoring that is often more subtle than in an actual classroom. Violations are harder to perceive and cannot be instantly reprimanded.

Social networking, even on-line, is still a social activity. This requires skills in relating to others and an ethical sense of behavior. With so much of life shifting to this mode,  students need help in practicing virtual relationship skills–setting expectations and limits, giving encouragement and watching out for others when on-line.

[1] Ito, Mizuko. Hanging Out, Messing Arounc and Geeking out: Kids Living and Learning with New Media, MIT Press.
Posted in Education trends, Technology in education | Tagged , | 1 Comment