Swift Kick Central

Making Them WANT To Do It (Apathy vs Engagement)

Tom Krieglstein — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:01:59 -0600

If you have ever attended a conference with us, you know we enjoy mixing stuff up through the use of Flashmobs and Blender Events, both of which stem from our Dance Floor Theory Leadership Training. The goals are to:

Have Fun
Increase Engagement
Build Relationships
Create Pattern Interrupts
Induce Positive Confusion (one reason why)

While some activities are repeated from conference to conference, others come from brainstorming sessions with the participants.

At a recent conference in New York, the associates (a.k.a. people/companies who pay money to attend with the intent of selling their product) were complaining to the conference organizer about the lack of conference attendees participating in the exhibit halls and showcases. As the grumbles of agreement erupted from the crowd, the conference organizer turned towards us and asked if we could send out a Flashmob txt about exhibit hall times and showcase times. Our reply? "No, that's not how it works."

It's not about making them HAVE to do it, it's about making them WANT to do it.

If we were to do what the conference organizer suggested, the Flashmob txt would have been something like this:

TXT A: @ 2:30pm the exhibit hall opens up, make sure you're there!

Instead our txt message was this:

TXT B: In the exhibit hall @ exactly 2:35pm howl to the moon for 10 secs like a pack of wolves. Then stop and walk on like nothing happened.

In TXT B we're making them WANT to do it, like they are missing out if they don't attend. TXT B achieves all five goals from above and, for the purposes of the conference, it also gets more attendees to participate in the exhibit hall.

TXT B also removes the marketing from the activity, which is a common mistake when attempting community engagement. If you're marketing, you're marketing, not relationship building.

The difference between them HAVING to do it and them WANTING to do it is the difference between apathy and engagement.

'Fun' can be the change behavior. If you're still not convinced, check out these ideas from The Fun Theory:

To implement change on your campus, start by creating an "I Wish List..."

I wish more students would recycle
I wish more students would walk to campus vs drive
I wish more students would attend events
I wish more students would smile
I wish more students would wash their hands
I wish more students would...

Next create a list of current solutions for each item:

Post signs above recycle bins
Don't do anything
Flyers, posters, emails
Don't do anything
Post signs in every bathroom

Lastly, circle up with 2-4 other people and generate a brainstorming list of creative engaging ways to solve each problem that they will WANT to do. Then try it out and if you really want, you can collect quantitative data to determine effectiveness (e.g. Did more people wash their hands?).

It will take more time to implement some of these ideas, but, to repeat from above, it's the difference between apathy and engagement.

p.s. If your idea is really good, try submitting it to the Fun Theory Award for a chance to win $3,600.

The Value of Leveraging Network Nodes In The College Community

Tom Krieglstein — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:36:05 -0500

Last spring, I was traveling on a public bus from Laguardia Airport in New York to my hotel on the north side of Manhattan. When I got on the bus at the airport, the bus driver was in a heated argument with someone complaining about being charged twice for the ride. The bus driver was clearly not amused and went from zero to outrage in ten seconds. Trying not to be his next target, I smiled, paid and sat down in the first open seat.

For the next 30 minutes, I watched the driver mumble under his breath and shake his head in a perpetual state of anger. Each new passenger who entered the bus needed to only glaze quickly into the driver's eyes to see he was not happy.

The bus made its way into Harlam at about the same time the local high schools were getting out. I was worried about mixing an angry driver with agitating teens. At the first stop in Harlam, two teens jumped on the bus with big smiles and extended a ribbon-tied rolled-up piece of paper toward the driver.

Congratulations! For all the hard work you do on Bus Route M60, you've been awarded the Platinum Honorary Certificate of Greatness!

The driver didn't grab the paper, so the teens placed it on the dashboard and then jumped back to the sidewalk and darted down the street. Visibly annoyed, the driver closed the door and drove on.

A few streets later, we stopped at a red light. The driver used the pause as an opportunity to reach, untie and open the rolled certificate. Impressively, the certificate used fancy Letterpress printing, color images and even had a foil circle stamp at the bottom. I couldn't make out all the text, but at the top it read,

The Platinum Certificate of Greatness is Awarded to Members of Society Who Demonstrate a Commitment to Making Our Lives Better.

I watched as the driver laughed under his breath and then cracked a smile. It was like a magic spell was released when he opened the certificate because, from that moment forward, his attitude totally changed.

A taxi behind us laid on his horn because the light had switched to green several seconds prior. The bus driver calmly said, "ok, ok. I'm moving."

Amazing! Ten minutes ago he probably would have gotten off the bus to physically engage the taxi driver. When new people entered the bus, he welcomed them with a smile, which inspired the new bus riders to grin back.

I sat there in awe as the entire culture of the bus changed. People started smiling,laughing, and talking.

It's amazing how such a simple act targeted at exactly the right person can have such a large impact on the entire community.

The bus driver was a network node for the community. A node in that he connected with hundreds of people on his route throughout the day. His positive or negative attitude was contagious to the people he came in contact with and it set the tone for the culture of the bus.

Teachers and staff members are network nodes for college campus communities. They come in contact with hundreds of students throughout the day. If the teacher or staff member is in a bad mood, that feeling can be contagious to the students he/she comes in contact with.

As we talk about engaging and growing the college community, let's not forget about the teachers and staff members as the network nodes. What can we do to engage them more? Very few student activities' departments we work with have a formal plan on how to engage teachers and staff members. Teachers and staff members are very much a part of the campus culture and shouldn't be ignored.

The other interesting idea that stemmed from this situation is why would the teens bother to take the time to create such a fancy certificate, wait for the bus to arrive, present it to the bus driver and then run away and not see the end result of their effort? Some might answer that they did it for laughs or for fun or as a dare or class project. All of which might be true, but there is something bigger at play here; the teenagers' tiny action had a huge impact on the community's reciprocal social capital.

As author Robert Putnam of Bowling Alone defines it:

I'll do this for you now, without expecting anything immediately in return, and perhaps without even knowing you, confident that down the road you or someone else will return the favor to either me or someone else in the community. A well connected person in a poorly connected society isn't as productive as a well connected person in a well connected society.

More on the concept of reciprocal social capital and why and how you can create it in your community in my next post. Now get back to work!

Playing Catch Up: Colleges and the Web

Kevin Prentiss — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:56:15 -0500

(This is a cross post from the Student Affairs Blog)

"We shape our tools and then our tools shape us." - Marshall McLuhan

You've probably heard the term "Web 2.0." The idea was that the changes in how the internet worked over the last 8 years were profound enough to warrant a whole new version. While the term has come to embody a whole host of ideas, for our purposes, I'm going to focus on one main idea: the shift from one to many to many to many.

At the beginning of the web, pages were published and static. The web surfer could read or look at multimedia. The early web was a book, magazine or television experience, delivered via the computer. There was one publisher and many readers. It was profound because there could be many publishers which massively expanded the total content. Soon the content was searchable. It was a good start.

The expanding "Web 2.0" insight is that the web, unlike previous mass media, does not have to be one way communication. The website does not have to just publish, it can be a conversation. Site visitors can leave comments, upload pictures, or edit the content on the website, and these new features provide a mass media experience entirely different than anything that has come before it.

The idea of allowing anyone to edit a website, enabled by a simple software tool called "wiki," lead to the explosive growth of Wikipedia. Turns out thousands of people around the world wanted to donate their time and expertise to a repository of human knowledge. Wikipedia was the first to let them.

We are social animals, and it didn't take long for this preference to come to front. Comments were better if we could see the person behind them. Pictures were more interesting with a little back story. Interacting with the content of the site quickly became interacting with the people of the site. "Social networking" sites were the logical extreme of this shift back to our foundational values.

Sites like Facebook and Twitter prioritized the human and the social - people came first, with their individual content second. Neither Facebook nor Twitter have any of their own content. People do not connect to Twitter, they connect to other people using Twitter. These sites, and many others, are successful because they skipped the publishing model entirely and went right to a connecting and aggregating model. These sites don't produce, they collect content from the users and manage the delivery of that content through the network.

The difference of these approaches is the difference between an expert publisher, and an old style telephone operator working the switchboard. Amazingly enough, it is now the "telephone operator" business models that are worth billions and the "expert" business models that are in trouble.

Web 1.0: The "expert" publisher

Web 2.0: The connector and content aggregation

As the competition for attention heats up, and social sites experience explosive growth, firms that have a publishing model, like the New York Times, are desperately trying to figure out how they can make their offering more social.

To make a website "social" is to add functionality that allows site visitors to actively interact with each other, to move from viewer to participant. Site owners see social features as a way to get users to stick around longer - because people are more interesting than content.

The desire to add "social" to a core function of an institution is not new to higher education. Student Unions were some of the first institutional efforts to make college more social. Students wanted to connect with each other, and, when it happened, this connection created belonging, engagement, collaboration, enhanced learning, and community. Student affairs, through student activities specifically, has long stressed providing students with opportunities to interact and socialize.

Based on the incredible investment of universities in social architecture: in quads, residence halls and lounges, it's ironic that most universities still do not see the internet as cost effective social venue, despite the countless examples online.

People want to socialize with their peers, both in person and online. Facebook's massive growth rate, and continued use, within college networks proves a profound need and opportunity was (and is) there. Universities just couldn't see how to extend the old value and investment into connecting and learning, to the new field.

It is still a challenge. Universities are following along the same trends of the internet as a whole, with a bit of a lag. College websites are still mostly "web 1.0": characterized by static content, controlled by a centralized office. Curriculum and learning is still centralized and controlled in learning managment systems like Blackboard. Where there are discussion features in Blackboard, the content stays centralized with the class and is lost at the end of the term. Where there are blogs on university websites, they tend to be written by selected and edited "brand ambassadors" - an attempt to put a real face on a preferred message.

This year, often led by the admissions department, it has become fashionable for schools to use social media links on their sites. The thinking, however, is still mostly in the 1.0 paradigm: "follow the school on twitter" or "become a fan of the university on Facebook." In this paradigm, the university is still the focus, a one to many publisher in the center.

Based on competition and financial pressures, businesses based on publishing models are scrambling to decentralize, lower cost structures, and move their models towards connecting and aggregating. When will the paradigm shift for the University?

When will the goal of university technology efforts be to connect the students to each other, rather than connecting the students to the school?

These kind of institutional paradigm shifts - from one to many, to many to many - won't come from just one department. These shifts have to bubble up from many places. Do you think the university can catch up?

The Anyone, Anything, Anytime, Anywhere Education

Tom Krieglstein — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:21:19 -0500

Whether educational institutions like it or not, education is changing and walled gardens are evaporating. New ideas in education are emerging...or, probably better to say, old ideas are finally able to be technologically implemented. Whichever the case, the change is no longer bound by old ideas like nationality, income, time, or location.

ANYONE:

The One Laptop Per Child Association is a non-profit organization whose mission is to:

Create educational opportunities for the world's poorest children by providing each child with a rugged, low-cost, low-power, connected laptop with content and software designed for collaborative, joyful, self-empowered learning.

To date, the non-profit has shipped approximately 1.4 million laptops to the world's poorest school children in 24 countries such as Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Colombia, and Uruguay.

The laptop connects to the internet through a mesh network which provides a cheap but powerful connection. That means 1.4 million of the world's poorest children have access to the internet and soon ANYONE will have access to the internet.

ANYTHING:

The current tuition at Stanford University is around $35,000. Don't have the money, but still want a world class education? No worries. Stanford, along with other institutions such as MIT and Harvard, post many of their classes online for FREE. You won't get a degree by taking these courses, but if your goal is to learn for the sake of learning then you now have free access to courses on ANYTHING you want online.

Update 9/6/09: Academic Earth aggregates course videos from leading universities and allows you to create you own "academic playlists."

ANYTIME:

Every Tuesday, educators on Twitter start tweeting up a storm as they begin another session of their weekly digital classroom conversation. The main topic of discussion is voted on by members the previous day (Monday).

To coordinate the conversation all the participates use the hashtag #edchat in their status updates. The idea was started by Tom Whitby, Shelly Terrell, and Steven Anderson as a way to coordinate the many education conversations happening on Twitter at any given moment.

While the majority of the conversations occur within standard business hours, people like Chad Sansing of Charlottesville, VA decide they want to ask the tough questions at 3:57 am Wednesday morning!

Chad isn't alone in participating at extremely off hours. Hundreds of tweets happened between 1:00 am and 4:00 am on Wednesday morning. Participants have the ability to plug into the #edchat conversation ANYTIME they want.

ANYWHERE:

This week's Tuesday #edchat included 1,446 tweets from 235 contributers from all over the world as displayed in the map below.

To be expected, many countries in North America and Europe participated as well as a few in the Middle East and Southeast Asia. But, look closely and you'll see the most impressive country on the list is the Falkland Islands.

According to Wikitravel, internet access on the Falkland Islands is still primitive, but someone on the islands was motivated enough to be a part of the international #edchat. You can be ANYWHERE in the world and plug into an international conversation on education.

The Anyone, Anything, Anytime, Anywhere Education

It's been a dream for a long time to have free, open, and equal educational opportunities for every single person in the world. Now that anyone can learn anything at anytime from anywhere in the world, that dream is not far off.

At Student Orientation, Don't Forget About Bridging Social Capital

Tom Krieglstein — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 12:31:24 -0500

The Bystander Effect is a well-known psychological study conducted by Bibb Latane and John Darley that grew out of the stabbing death of Kitty Genovese in 1964 while eyewitnesses looked on but did nothing to help. According to Wikipedia:

...individuals are less likely to offer help in an emergency situation when other people are present. The probability of help is inversely proportional to the number of bystanders. In other words, the greater the number of bystanders, the less likely it is that any one of them will help.

Robert Putnam's famous book on the collapse of the American community, "Bowling Alone," notes that buried in the Bystander Effect research is also the finding that the amount of social capital within a group plays a large role in determining if someone will help or not. The greater the social capital, the greater the chance they will help. In other words, you're more likely to help a family member in trouble than a totally random stranger.

Social capital refers to the value one gains from the relationships with others (human capital) or things (physical capital). For this post let's only focus on human capital which can be further broken down into:

- Bonding Social Capital: The value one gains from their relationships with close family and friends
- Bridging Social Capital: The value one gains from their relationships with associates
- Maintained Social Capital (Newer Idea): The value one gains from their relationships with people who used to be close family and friends, but are now physically very far away (think transition from High School to College).

In the Genovese story, the lack of engagement by the eyewitnesses likely means they didn't know each other very well and that the level of Bridging Social Capital would've been presumably very low. (Note: I am speculating here as this is not documented in the study.)

Latane and Darley's study highlights the value of simple Bridging Social Capital with a test in which an actor walks down a hallway and either says "hello" to a subject walking in the opposite direction or ignores them. Then a few moments later the actor has an apparent seizure. If the actor said "hello," the subject was quicker to provide help than if there was no communication.

Little interactions, even saying "hello," add up to stronger Bridging Social Capital between people within a community. As Robert Putnam puts it:

Like pennies dropped in a cookie jar, each of these encounters is a tiny investment in social capital.

A theme for new student orientation is to funnel people into student groups as fast as possible because, as Tinto says, there is a correlation between student involvement and retention. This will likely lead to higher levels of Bonding Social Capital on campus because people will create more intimate relationships within the groups.

At the same time, don't forget about the little things that can be done to add more pennies to the cookie jar to increase the Bridging Social Capital of the campus. Sometimes a simple "hello" or smile goes a long way.

Whenever I run a new student orientation, I have student leaders stand at the door to welcome new students as they enter. It's not a big production nor is it glamorous, but the impact in terms of the new students feeling comfortable can be seen right away.

Then, throughout the year, think about what your student groups are doing to increase the level of Bridging Social Capital on campus. It doesn't have to be a big production, but rather something as simple as a Free Hugs Campaign.

Little interactions can have a big impact on student engagement.

Stop Making Parents the Punchline and Include Them in the EdTech Conversation

Tom Krieglstein — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:30:28 -0500

Digitally ignorant parents find themselves once again the punchline of a new website dutifully called MyParentsJoinedFacebook.com. The site was created by a daughter after her dad joined Facebook and his social networking activity quickly became obnoxious to her. With a swift gain in popularity, MyParentsJoinedFacebook.com joins others in exploiting (right or wrong) parents' naivete as a way to add a few laughs and clicks.

Between the easy laughs and "Dateline" fear mongering, I can understand why a 2008 MacArthur Foundation supported study showed that parents tend to be in the dark about what their kids are doing online and 66% consider "the internet" as dangerous as drunk driving.

We need to stop scaring, laughing at, or excluding parents and instead start having real conversations. As James P. Steyer, CEO of Common Sense Media, said:

“Technology is a major part of our kids’ worlds, and that is not going to change. Parents need to know what their kids are doing in their digital lives, and they have to be well informed about issues like privacy, ethical behavior, digital literacy, and cyberbullying. When parents understand these potential pitfalls and communicate with their kids, the internet can be an educational, entertaining, and safe environment.”

Not surprisingly, research shows that the more educated and engaged a parent is in their child's online activity, the more positively they see the internet's potential.

Having said all this, we at Swift Kick are launching several new educational offerings geared toward parents and grandparents.

To kick off, this Saturday we're partnering with the world-renounwed education group QLN to host our first, parent/grandparent only, training in San Diego. If you are in the area, sign up today to reserve your seat.

Then, over the next month, we'll begin announcing a series of regional parent/grandparent programs, webinars, and an ongoing Web Coaching Program.

After 5 years and 300+ trainings with 10,000s of students and educators we know we've progressed the technology conversation further past the doom and gloom. Now it's time to work with parents as a critical third player.

We are bringing to parents the same level of quality and research that's awarded us the title as the #1 Campus Trainers for 2007, 2008, and 2009 by member schools of the Association for the Promotion of Campus Activities.

There are champions already promoting great work like Common Sense Media, iSafe, Digital Dialog, Cable in the Classroom, Radical Parenting, The Online Mom, and BJ Fogg that we'll parter with to help dispel the myths and promote positive, effective technology use.

These are just a few and we don't like to move slow, so if you're connected to parents and would like to partner, either leave a comment below or contact us.

Here's to parents, we got your digital back ;-)

School Website Design is Part of the Student Engagement Problem

Tom Krieglstein — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:59:05 -0500

In the first version of Red Rover's navigation bar, we included a 'Live Help' button (pictured below) that generated 5-8 sessions with students per day.

As more students joined Red Rover, we realized the 'Help' section needed to include more options other than just 'Live Help'. So we created a new 'Help' section (pictured below) and moved 'Live Help' under it.

Though we expanded the 'Help' options and 'Live Help' was still there, we went from 5-8 'Live Help' session per day to ZERO 'Live Help' sessions per day. Once 'Live Help' was moved, not a single student used the feature. It's not that an equal amount of traffic was dispersed to the other sections, but rather the entire 'Help' section was used less. I could say that our software just got better and thus students needed less help, but that's probably not the case.

With 'Live Help' directly on the main page we generated 5-8 sessions per day, but if the student had to click once more to use the feature it generated ZERO sessions per day. That's the difference one click deep on a website can make in terms of engagement.

So how many clicks does it take to get to your department's information on your school's website? Start at the homepage and literally count the number of clicks.

Each additional click means fewer students will actually see your content.

I know website design and UX design are not two more hats you're excited to put on over your 30 other hats, but as students consume more information online, our website design is becoming increasingly more important.

Facebook and The Adolescent Brain - The Emerging Employers' Dilemma

Tom Krieglstein — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:44:18 -0500

Two weeks ago, I asked my Facebook followers if they'd post differently knowing that 60% of employers search the web when considering potential employees. Several students came back with strongly worded annoyances about not wanting to change their online behavior:

Then my adult friends chimed in:

Though we were talking about online behavior, the difference in opinion between students and adults highlights that adolescent behavior online is no different than adolescent behavior offline. And the gap between adult cognitive processing and adolescent cognitive processing is still tangible.

The cognitive processing gap reminded me of the September 2008 Time Magazine cover story that took an in-depth look at the adolescent brain, led by Dr. Jay Giedd of the National Institute of Mental Health. The goal of the study was to:

... determine how the brain develops from childhood into adolescence and on into early adulthood.

After 1800 teenage participants and 13 years of research, Dr. Giedd is convinced we have miscalculated the links between adolescent behavior and adolescent brain development.

... the wild conduct once blamed on "raging hormones" is being seen as the by-product of two factors: a surfeit of hormones, yes, but also a paucity of the cognitive controls needed for mature behavior.

Dr. Giedd explains how brains generally develop from back to front. With the prefrontal being the last section to fully develop around 25.

The very last part of the brain to be pruned and shaped to its adult dimensions is the prefrontal cortex, home of the so-called executive functions--planning, setting priorities, organizing thoughts, suppressing impulses, weighing the consequences of one's actions.
"Scientists and the general public had attributed the bad decisions teens make to hormonal changes," says Elizabeth Sowell, a UCLA neuroscientist. "But once we started mapping where and when the brain changes were happening, we could say, Aha, the part of the brain that makes teenagers more responsible is not finished maturing yet."
... the parts for exercising judgment are still maturing throughout the course of adolescence. So you've got this time gap between when things impel kids toward taking risks early in adolescence, and when things that allow people to think before they act come online. It's like turning on the engine of a car without a skilled driver at the wheel."

In light of these new findings, even the American Bar Association has urged state legislatures to ban the death penalty for juveniles:

"For social and biological reasons, teens have increased difficulty making mature decisions and understanding the consequences of their actions."

Going back to my original Facebook question, it seems like Dr. Giedd's study is playing out in real time on the internet with employee/employer relationships.

The 2009 Deloitte LLP Ethics & Workplace Survey found that 60% of business executives say they have a "right to know" how employees portray themselves and their organizations online and 30% admit to "informally monitoring social networking sites." In reaction, 53% of employees said their social networking pages are none of their employers' business and 61% say that even if employers are monitoring, they won't change their online behavior.

We have a classic chicken/egg challenge. Will adolescents change their behavior online to suit their current or future employers needs, or will employers change their attitudes about online behavior knowing that the prefrontal doesn't fully develop until 25?

Dr. Giedd jokes that at least the rental car industry has it right because you can't rent a car until you're 25.

I tend to think that as more of our adolescent years are played out and recorded online forever, societal attitudes will shift towards a greater acknowledgment of "oh those were his/her adolescent years" and put less long term judgement on those actions.

It will be interesting to see our first "Facebook President," or watch a parent tell a child not to do something and the child turns around and Googles a video and picture of the parent doing the exact same thing.

How to Make Student Engagement Contagious

Tom Krieglstein — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:58:24 -0500

In 1969, famed psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a social experiment looking at the contagiousness of engagement. Wired magazine's Jonah Lehrer accurately summarizes the experiment:

In this study, Milgram had "confederates" stop on a busy city street and look upwards at the sky. He demonstrated that when one person was looking up, 40 percent of passerby also looked up, just in case something interesting was happening. (There was nothing to look at, just sky and buildings.) When two people were looking up, 60 percent of passerby looked up. When there were three people, the percentage jumped to 65 percent, and, when there were four people, nearly 80 percent of strangers stopped and stared upwards.

Here's a video of the experiment in action:

In the unrelated setting of the 2009 Sasquatch Music Festival, a replication of Milgram's experiment occurred as seen in the video below:

The first dancer was alone for a long while, but loved every moment. Some would consider him to be a bit socially off. Then #2 shows up, and from his facial expression, seems to look back at his friends as if he were doing it as a dare or joke. Then, #3 shows up and this is where it gets serious. From that moment on, the level of engagement exponentially grows. This is no longer one person dancing, or a dare, or a joke; this is a contagious social movement.

Connecting the ideas together gets me thinking about the role of student leaders on campus. The current paradigm for student leaders is to host engaging activities (e.g. dance party, cookouts, musicians, etc) and then try to get people to participate. Most schools have a very difficult time achieving success with this model. Also in this model, student leaders tend to look like the sole person dancing by themselves looking a bit off from the rest of the social scene as was the case with the Sasquatch dancer. Yes you are called a leader for being #1, but the real engagement doesn't happen until #3 shows up.

In terms of student engagement, maybe student leaders should stop trying to be #1 by hosting the events and instead find the random #1s on your campus and support them by being #3.

Stop creating events that you think are good and look for students on your campus that are doing cool stuff and support them. Stop being the leader and start being the supporter.

The Tech of Student Success: Comparing Facebook, Ning and Red Rover

Kevin Prentiss — Thu, 21 May 2009 01:05:19 -0500

John Jay College of Criminal Justice was reviewing a number of different social tools, trying to figure out where they wanted to invest their time and money. They asked me to help clarify how they fit together.

I did it with a little video and I though it came out pretty well - if just a wee bit long winded - so I wanted to share.

Here you go:

Comparison of Social Network Tools for John Jay from Red Rover on Vimeo.

Click here for the slides of the Junco / Heiberger (2009, March) You can use Facebook for that? Research-supported strategies to engage your students. NACPA Presentation

Correction: At one point I said "Mr. Junco" but I obviously meant "DR. Junco."