Framing Social Web Tools
In reviewing T. L. Taylor’s Play Between Worlds for a reading response assignment, I started to think about the language we use to talk about social web tools. Our choice of words can have an enormous impact on whether or not people choose to adopt new technologies. As in any form of persuasive argument, framing is key.
If we focus on the tools first, and not the potential social benefits, we miss an opportunity. But if we instead focus on the potential social benefits first, and the tools second, people might be more willing to explore these new technologies. For example, if we say that “people are finding jobs on Linkedin” and not, “Linkedin is a social networking tool” people, particularly those looking for work, might be more willing to explore Linkedin if they had not previously.
An article in today’s Chronicle online, titled “Educators Are Split About the Viability of Second Life” reports that the New Media Consortium asked educators to respond to the following question, “What is the future of Second Life?” However, if the question was asked this way, “What is the future of education in virtual worlds?” The survey results might have been different. Even for those unfamiliar with virtual worlds, the question implies that learning is taking place there.
I took this for granted last semester during a discussion about Jared Lanier’s Digital Maoism. But as I read more online and hear more people talking about their reactions to new technologies, it reminds that, again, that in any form of persuasion, framing is key.
Education, Emerson College, Grad School, Internet, Media Education, Second Life, Social Networking Tools, Web 2.0 in Education
