Advertisement

The Social Organization of Students in Class Versus in an Online Social Network: Freedom and Constraint in Two Different Settings

Chapter
  • 134 Downloads

Abstract

In “The Social Organization of Students,” Pariser and Forget illustrate the variable effects of participating in both a physical and a virtual classroom and examine the students’ interactions with their classmates online as well as in person. The MonCoin curriculum’s closed social network gave students the chance to explore new “performances” of themselves as they explored and constructed their identities (Goffman in The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books, New York, 1959). The students’ online and off line interactions generated revealing sociograms. These maps of interpersonal relationships offer significant potential benefits for teachers who aim to understand the social dynamics of their classrooms better.

Keywords

Mobile media Social media Art education Sociograms Performance Identity 

References

  1. Akbari, E., Castro, J. C., Lalonde, M., Moreno, L., & Pariser, D. (2016). “This allowed us to see what others were thinking”: Curriculum for peer-initiated learning in art. Art Education, 69(5), 20–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akbari, E., & Pariser, D. (2017, March 2). Identity, mobilities, social media in art class. New York: National Art Education Association Convention. Google Scholar
  3. Boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bromwich, D. (2015, July 9). Trapped in the virtual classroom. The New York Review of Books, 62(12), 14–16.Google Scholar
  5. Castro, J. C. (2014). Constructing, performing and perceiving identity(ies) in the place of on line art education. Journal of Cultural Research in Art Education, 31, 32–54.Google Scholar
  6. Castro, J. C., Lalonde, M., & Pariser, D. (2016). Understanding the (im)mobilities of engaging at-risk youth through art and mobile media. Studies in Art Education, 57(3), 238–251. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis, J. (2016). Curation: A theoretical treatment. Information, Communication & Society, 20(5), 770–783.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2016.1203972. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doidge, N., & Balsillie J. (2018, February 17). Smartphones: Have we alone made ourselves addicted? Globe and Mail, 1–6.Google Scholar
  9. Ganda, M. (2014). Social media and self: Influences on the formation of identity and understanding of self though social networking sites (Doctoral dissertation). Portland State University, Portland, OR. Google Scholar
  10. Gardner, H., & Davis, K. (2013). The app generation: How today’s youth navigate identity, intimacy and imagination in a digital world. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  12. Hebdige, D. (1979). Subculture: The meaning of style. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Hesmondhalgh, D. (2005). Subcultures, scenes or tribes? None of the above. Journal of Youth Studies, 8(1), 21–40 (published online January 23, 2007). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hodkinson, P. (2002). Goth: Identity, Style and Subculture. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  15. Hogan, B. (2010). The presentation of self in the age of social media: Distinguishing performances and exhibitions online. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(6), 377–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lalonde, M., Castro, J. C., & Pariser, D. (2016). Identity tableaux: Multimodal contextual constructions of adolescent identity. Visual Art Research, 42(1), 38–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. MacDonald, C. D., & Cohen, R. (1995). Children’s awareness of which peers like them and which peers dislike them. Social Development, 4(2), 182–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Maffesoli, M. (1996). The time of the tribes: The decline of individualism in mass society (D. Smith, Trans.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Muggleton, D. (2000). Inside subculture: The postmodern meaning of style. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  21. Oram, A. (2009, October 26). What sociologist Erving Goffman could tell us about social networking and internet identity. Retrieved from: http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/10/what-sociologist-erving-goffma.html.
  22. Robards, B., & Bennett, A. (2011). My tribe: Post-subcultural manifestations of belonging on social network sites. Sociology, 45(2), 303–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Terkel, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other . Philadelphia: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  24. Treem, J. W., Dailey, S. L., Pierce, C. S., & Biffl, D. (2016). What we are talking about when we talk about social media: A framework for study. Sociology Compass, 10(9), 768–784. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Concordia UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations