Annotated Bibliography 11/8

Bugeja, Michael J. "Facing the Facebook." The Chronicle of Higher Education, 27 Jan. 2006. GoogleScholar. Web. 30 Oct. 2011. http://vpss.ku.edu/pdf/PSDC%20Facing%20the%20Facebook.pdf  

1.      This source is more objective, though it still encompasses the basic idea of the first source. The author claims that 'Unless we reassess our high-tech priorities, issues of student insensitivity, indiscretion, and fabrication will consume us.' His tone is slightly more comical and casual, making it seem like he is directing his argument toward a more modern and broader audience.

2.      He expresses a 'yes, but' view at the beginning, stating his original claim about distractions    and Facebook, but goes on to explore the different uses of Facebook and the ways it can be used to connect people usefully. This makes his argument seem more qualified and exploratory instead of objective. he concludes that most professors at Universities don't want their students using Facebook and other social networking sites during class, and different teachers expect different resources to be used in learning environments. He decides that the issue is more about the 'misuse of technology' rather than the use of it in general.

3.       I liked the article, because instead of arguing a certain point, it explored multiple views and the conclusion wasn't really what I expected. I agree with most of his claims- Facebook has a place and a time, and maybe it's time to re-evaluate these cues.

4.      I think this source will be helpful in my project because it explored both how Facebook is beneficial in some areas and destructive in others, such as education.

Drouin, M. A. "College students’ text messaging, use of textese and literacy skills." Journal of Computer Assisted Learning27.112 Jan. (2011): 67-73. Wiley Online Library. Web. 2 Nov. 2011. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00399.x/pdf.

1.       This source is not as specifically objective as the others, but it does have a purpose. The author notes the more frequent use of texting and cell phone use these days as opposed to even just five years ago. It gives me a sense of how depending our culture has become on their cell phones. However, it also explores ‘textese’- the special language that has evolved just out of texting: certain words that people have invented to abbreviate words or to mean make up phrases. He expresses the concerns of parents and educators that have seen this ‘language’ come about, and the biases that go along with that- that this newfangled technology can be harmful to the literacy and intellectualism of their children and students. “In studies that have examined these memory processes with regard to spelling ability in adults, researchers have shown that even a single exposure to a misspelled word can have a detrimental impact on future spellings of that word.’ This article would definitely be directed to a more educated, scientific, curious audience, such as parents and teachers.

2.      The author’s point is that the use of textese, according to certain studies is proven to hinder students’ literacy and academic intellectualism in some senses, and therefore could be considered ‘bad.’ He comes to the conclusion that it’s harder for students to remember certain information because of their use of this textese.

3.      I learned a good bit from the article. I had a hunch that texting could have such negative effects, but the studies seen in this article confirmed my beliefs. I learned about the language of ‘textese’, which I can definitely refer to in my paper. I agree with all of the author’s claims.

4.      I think this text will be useful because it was about something other and Facebook, and it actually had facts to prove how detrimental this media can be to students and younger generations if we continue to use them so much in the future. It gave me more things to write about, and I believe I can tie texting into my exploratory essay in the viewpoint of the harmful effects of these tools.

Eisenberg, Jesse, perf. The Social Network. Dir. David Fincher. 2010. Columbia Pictures. Web. 6 Nov. 2011.

1. This source is great for a viewpoint for my paper because it explores the actual inner workings of Facebook, and surprisingly  enough, it’s hard to tell whether the movie is for or against Facebook by the end. It’s a movie that most everyone my age has seen and can relate to, and it explores both the benefits of Facebook and everything that went incredibly wrong with it as well. I think the director was biased against Facebook at some points, and biased for it at some as well. Obviously the movie was made to make Facebook more popular, but it shows so much negativity towards the site that it’s hard to think that there wasn’t some bitterness in the mix as well. The movie is directed toward literally every audience- teenagers using Facebook, their parents who don’t like it but want to know more about it, and the like.
2. This movie’s main idea was that people absolutely needed a way to connect with their peers. It started as a small college project, and turned into something that people could use around the world. However, after a while, things got complicated and people couldn’t be trusted, so the project turned into a catastrophe despite its popularity.  The movie concludes with Mark Zuckerberg keeping the project alive and becoming rich after a lawsuit.
3. Personally, after watching this movie I wanted to go get on Facebook, knowing exactly how it was made and what I could use it for. I was interested in the views that were presented in the movie, such as the business aspect of it, and the fact that people are virtually supposed to get addicted to Facebook, so people like Mark can make more money off their own genius ideas.
4. I think all of this will definitely help me in my paper, because even though the movie is fictitious, it brings up some good points, like: why do we love Facebook so much? When will it go out of style? Can we moderate our usage of it without becoming addictive? And has its usage already gotten out of hand?

Graham, Paula. "Web 2.0 and Why?" Cartoon. Creative Commons : 1-19. GoogleScholar. Web. 2 Nov. 2011. http://fossbox.org.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/1-what-why-how.pdf.

1.       This piece is not objective; it’s just the facts, which I like. The author leans towards the side of not liking social networking and Web 2.0, because it makes you give up some control online, however it is very subtle, just providing facts and letting the reader decide for him or herself what to believe. It is directed at virtually any audience who can read and has had experience with such ‘Web 2.0’.

2.      The main ideas are just listing what social networking sites and Web 2.0 are, providing examples, and explaining how they work. It gives statistics about these sites, how to ‘properly’ use them, and some common mistakes people make when using them that leads to invasions of privacy and such.

3.      I learned a lot from the article, especially how incredibly popular these websites are, and how easily influenced people are by them. I’m not entirely sure I liked what I saw. I agree with what she had to say about proper usage, and that people have to give up a good bit of control and social contact to actually utilize them.

4.      I think I can use a lot of the statistics mentioned in this research because they can help prove some of the points I will make about social networking hindering performance in students. The rest is fairly interesting and I’m sure I will be able to use it as inspiration to make my essay interesting to read 

Henry, Haley. "10 reasons social networking benefits students." Kansas State Collegiate. N.p., 24 Feb. 2011. Web. 6 Nov. 2011. <http://www.kstatecollegian.com/edge/10-reasons-social-networking-benefits-students-1.2480338#.Trbl3fSa9tk>.

1. This source is definitely objective, and the positive biases toward social networking are clear. The article references ‘The Social Network’, the controversial movie about the birth of Facebook, causing the revolution of social networking around the world. This article covers social networking more in a sense of college students, which represents the specific bias of students themselves, considering that Mark Zuckerberg was a student at Harvard when he created the site. In this case, the article is directed mainly at college students looking to expand their repertoire of friends and personal connections through the internet because it’s at their full disposal and literally at their fingertips.

2. The main idea of the article is that students benefit more in social settings by staying connected with these social networks, and they make everything that much more convenient. It touches on how the internet has made the world ‘feel smaller’ because the flow of information is so quick these days that we can find anything we want as fast as we want it. It says that ‘we can make a better impact on the world’ because we can make strong alliances for causes, banding together easier than ever.

3. This article didn’t surprise me in the least considering it was directed towards teenagers and a young generation that seems to need Facebook to live. I agree with the author’s claims mostly because I am a teenager, but also because the author makes true points concerning the validity of sites such as Facebook.

4. This article would be great for my essay because it gives such an objective viewpoint of Facebook in a positive light, and it is from the perspective of a teenager since it’s written by a college student.

Huijser, Henk. "Exploring the Educational Potential of Social Networking Sites." Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation, and Development. N.p., Sept. 2008. GoogleScholar. Web. 30 Oct. 2011. <http://eprints.usq.edu.au/4426/2/Huijser_2008_Sleid.pdf>.

1. This source us definitely objective. It covers one main viewpoint, engulfing the effects of    Social networking sites such as Facebook and other sites like 'wikis', and this new 'Generation Y's' educational potential. The social context on information (ie what other people think about it), and how the uses of 'Web 2.0' can determine certain potentials, depending on how it is used, meaning that the article is not completely negative.

2.   The article definitely represents the opinions and biases of educated professionals of an older generation; people who have researched this topic and who want to believe that these sites can definitely be harmful.The author seems to come to the conclusion that “Web 2.0 is a potentially disruptive technology because of its potential to change the model of higher education from the traditional classroom framework to an asynchronous 24/7 mode. "Also, he concludes that 'If these experiences include Web 2.0 technologies, it is up to us as educators, to exploit their educational opportunities, to avoid unwelcome imposition, and hence to create meaningful learning experiences for Generations A through to Z." He means that while these resources can be helpful in many ways, there is a fine line between educational resources and social destruction for the generations being taught, and who use these resources every day.

3.  From this article, my viewpoint of this issue was not altered because I agree for the most part with what the authors are saying - that social networking sites and this Web 2.0 is great to an extent, but that it is not the only basis for meaningful learning and existence for students and young people in this 'Y generation.'

4.  This text will definitely be useful in my project because it focuses on one main viewpoint, including countless examples and evidence from scholarly sources that I can use to get my points across and to explore this issue of social networking and the internet, and how it affects our younger generation education and social- stauswise.

Kessler, Jason. "Principal to parents: Take kids off Facebook." CNN Tech. CNN , 30 Apr. 2010. Web. 6 Nov. 2011. <http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/30/principal.facebook.ban/index.html?hpt=C2>.

1.      This article is unique in that it is from the viewpoint of an administrator of a New Jersey middle school. He, in agreement with parents of some of the kids in his school, wants to take the kids off Facebook. His main points include the fact that Facebook and other social networking sites provoke online bullying, and students between the ages of 11 and 14 just aren’t ready for that type of psychological damage. The fact that it is going on in school also points toward the point of education: “If things like this start in middle school, where will they end?” He asks. He is obviously biased against Facebook because every encounter he has had with it has been negative, and he wants kids to be more mature before they start letting themselves be prone to such an online world.

2.      His main point is obviously that he is against social networking and the effects it can have on people, primarily these ‘tweens’ in his school. The parents involved also think the same- they have been thanking him for speaking up. The author also touches on the fact that internet predation is much more likely to happen when you leave an unsupervised teenager with a computer, another good, negative point. He concludes with the fact that keeping Facebook away brings a positive impact on the safety of his school and appreciation from parents in the community.

3.      I agree with everything the author has to say: some people that use social networking sites are just too young: they have no need for such things, and results can only be negative when they use them. If not for the specific purpose of positively connecting with friends, Facebook and other sites have a defeated purpose.

4.      This site will definitely help me develop my point about parents and administrators, and what they think about the internet and such tools. Obviously they can only see these things in a negative light because of what they have witnessed with their children. Since it is a primary source of Facebook getting bad press, it will make excellent evidence.

Payne, Ed. "Study links too much texting, social networking to health risks." CNN Tech. CNN, 10 Nov. 2010. Web. 6 Nov. 2011. http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-10/tech/hyper.texting.teens_1_study-links-texting-social-networking?_s=PM:TECH.

1.      This source is definitely objective, and sees Facebook and texting and such in an obviously negative light. It attributes dangerous and harmful behaviors such as smoking and drinking to this ‘hypernetworking’- having instant access to so many people, and talking to virtually whoever we want to when we want to. The author is biased against these behaviors, and obviously this hypernetworking that is influencing younger generations to do these things.  His claims include the interests of probably and older group of people who have no grown up with these networking systems such as Facebook, Twitter, and texting. 

2.      The author addresses this issue of ‘hypernetworking’- sending more than 120 text messages or spending 3 hours or more on social networking sites a day- and says that these extensive periods of time online are contributing to ‘high tech peer pressure’ because of what teenagers can hear and see about other people, and who they can talk to with such ease.  The author notes also that minorities, children of parents with less education, and teenagers from homes without a father are more likely to engage in hypertexting and hypernetworking, and he concludes his argument with plenty of statistics as to what hypernetworking can do to teenagers being heavily influenced.

3.      Though I can’t be entirely sure how much of these facts are true about hypernetworking and its effects, all of the statistics and facts in this article are slightly appalling. I figured these risky behaviors would be increased by hypernetworking but not as much as the article stated. I can agree with some of his claims, but some seemed a bit ludicrous.

4.      I think this article will be very helpful in my paper because it represents a very negative viewpoint with specific evidence that I can use to prove a point about the negative effects on students and teenagers. It’s also from CNN, a fairly reliable source in my opinion.