In the wake of the 2011 MLA conference, there has been a great deal of discussion about the role of social media in higher education. This conversation has circulated through blogs, Twitter, and in the comment fields of both the Chronicle and Inside Higher Ed. We even featured a post about it here on ProfHacker. While I’ve found these discussion enlightening, I’ve also observed that they tend to be centered on the role of social media as it can enhance the research component of the professoriate, and the pedagogical element tends to be absent from much of the discussion. When we do talk about social media in the classroom, we talk about ways to engage students with various forms of social media: Mark Sample’s posts on teaching with Twitter both in theoretical terms and more practical ones are great examples of these discussions. But as fellow ProfHackers Brian Croxall and Ryan Cordell have both noted (for example, here and here respectively), social media also enables us to talk to each other about how we might become more effective in the classroom. To that end, I want to share with you one new resource for those of you who teach first-year writing: hashtag chat* #FYCchat.
#FYCchat is a weekly conversation about teaching first-year composition (FYC) that takes place on Twitter. It was founded in January of this year by Lee Skallerup (Twitter handle: @ReadyWriting) and Nicole P. (@comPOSITIONblog), both First-Year Writing faculty who “wanted a place to share idea, discuss best practices, compare notes, and vent about the challenges and rewards of teaching First Year Composition/Freshman Writing/ENG 101.” There have been two chats so far (1/12 and 1/19) where participants have discussed different strategies of planning a first-year writing course and favorite assignments. These conversations have been opportunities to learn things that might seem obvious to other instructors but that I had not have considered. They are also useful because they can facilitate conversations between people who might not otherwise have met. I’ve been teaching first-year writing for several years now, but I’m always looking for different ideas to keep things interesting, and in participating in just part of one of these discussions, I have gotten some really good ideas for assignments and exercises. Anyone with a Twitter account can participate in the discussion (or just lurk and learn), and if you have missed the first two chats, they are archived on a companion website, First Year Composition Chat.
But more than simply a resource for composition instructors, #FYCchat is a great example of ways that social media can help us to not only broaden our research networks but also enrich our teaching. Certainly the use of Twitter as a collective brainstorming tool should be familiar to anyone who has participated on the site, but hashtag chats can be a way of centralizing and focusing the conversation into a specific and productive channel. Hashtag chats such as #FYCchat can be a way to share ideas, strategies, and challenges that we face both inside and outside of the classroom. They can create new proximities and connections, and they can be effective in helping us to build contacts outside of our regular circle, whether literal or virtual.
Have you participated in a hashtag chat yet? Share your favorites (or brainstorm new ones) in the comments section below.
[Creative Commons licensed image by Flickr user celesteh]
*A hashtag chat, in brief, is a discussion on Twitter in which relevant tweets are usually tagged with a pre-assigned designation signaled by the number sign or hashtag (#).
Follow Profhacker through your favorite RSS reader: 
33 Responses to Enrich Your Teaching Through Social Media
electronicmuse - January 10, 2012 at 11:22 am
“Negative mentoring” is a contradiction in terms.
The problem with this thesis of “learning what not to do” from nominally “negative mentors” is that it assumes that those being mentored have the experience to distinguish between that which is positive, and that which is negative. By definition, the one being mentored is in a junior position, and likely less capable of making such distinctions, as per the cogent examples the author himself gives up front in this article.
This shouldn’t be deemed as merely a semantic distinction. We should let “mentor” remain a positive concept, as the word is defined as “an experience and trusted advisor.” Bad examples, or even “bad actors” should be recognized for what they are.
antiutopia - January 12, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Sheesh… someone who cares about careful, honorable administration at a higher ed institution. I was beginning to think that didn’t exist.
antiutopia - January 12, 2012 at 1:18 pm
I think that most people in academic positions are intelligent and educated enough to identify bad behavior when the see it. Most university administrative assistants are able to do that.
edeeb - January 12, 2012 at 1:58 pm
One problem I have seen with persons misrepresenting the profession (ie- poor mentors) is that there are persons who are unfamiliar with our culture (US American) and may assume that the actions of the professional represent what is right. If they have no one to ask about what is appropriate- and in small academic communities or departments this may be the situation- these students may leave with not only an inaccurate view of what is academically appropriate, they also leave with a skewed view of the culture. I am sure this is (potentially) true with visiting scholars around the globe.
wingedwarrior - January 12, 2012 at 4:05 pm
I often quote the great philosopher Jimmy Buffett who said, “I’ve read dozens of books about heroes and crooks and learned much from both of their styles.”
_perplexed_ - May 10, 2012 at 6:21 pm
Let’s hope the trend continues: Fewer and fewer athletic donors contributing less and less each year. Perhaps our failing economy can accomplish the heretofore impossible task of exerting some control on Division 1 athletics.
darccity - May 10, 2012 at 6:44 pm
This is so great!!! The precipitous drop in all college (and pro) attendance and revenues was initially blamed on the Great Recession, but it has continued downward as the economy recovers. Instead, the fickle fans are replacing physical attendance with sport bars and their new Man Cave big screen, multi-speaker system hooked to the web via a $100 Apple hookup. Fans that had to settle for a couple televised games can now see or steal transmissions of every home and away game, no matter how many attempts are made to shut down web sites. Bye-bye, big time sports, and welcome back colleges as a bastion of higher education. We missed ya!
cwinton - May 10, 2012 at 8:17 pm
The coaches Mr. Smith worries so much about had better hurry up and leave FSU if they want to rake in their millions before the sagging fortunes of big time athletics closes them out. Let’s just hope the collapse occurs rapidly.
yourpathahead - May 10, 2012 at 8:32 pm
Why does the IRS allow tax deductions contributions to sports, usually to guarantee season tickets.
kcissna - May 11, 2012 at 6:25 am
It doesn’t. You can only deduct what is in excess of the value received, and the university determines how much the ticket guarantee is worth. Your tax deduction is what is in excess of that.
seraphpendragon - May 11, 2012 at 9:12 am
Wouldn’t it be grand if the athletics weren’t sucking up both the university budgets and the charitable funds that might have gone to the university?
dr_bibliotekar - May 11, 2012 at 9:52 am
YAWN…
darccity - May 11, 2012 at 11:10 am
But realize what you are saying. Except for a handful of privates (Notre Dame, BYU, USC, Duke, Vandy, Boston C, etc.), the BCS conferences consist of all the major state Carnegie research universities! So that means that the only public universities funded by states to do research for their reputation are also big-time athletics schools! Perhaps that contributes to huge and growing gap between pay of full profs at private universities vs. state U., resulting in a brain drain that’s turning even our flagship U’s into party schools with streaming video “learning.”
Aptitude - May 11, 2012 at 11:35 am
Fear the Turtle ?
The race isn’t over.
ald8m - May 11, 2012 at 11:44 am
Most of these programs operate as auxiliary enterprises, i.e., self-supporting so they’re not sucking up institutional money. And research shows (and my own experience as a fund raiser supports it) that gifts to athletics would generally not translate to non-athletic giving if athletics somehow disappeared from the equation.
d_opiniated - May 11, 2012 at 1:47 pm
I don’t know how you could verify this from publicly available information. I have my doubts about relying on the financial statements to demonstrate that these programs are self supporting. There are a lot of ways to slice the pie on functional expenses. If, for example, scholarships are reported as tuition discounts and athletes receive more in scholarships than the average tuition discount, then the budget is likely supporting athletics. The accountants make a lot of judgement calls on how expenses are allocated to various activities. You can bet that no two schools compile their information the same way.
4206dinty - May 11, 2012 at 5:27 pm
Work wanted:: What to do with the stadiums??
powprof - May 11, 2012 at 9:29 pm
And, one has to look at who attends athletics events. If the majority of those attending are not students, then shouldn’t this enterprise be taxed instead of being tax-exempt? It could look like the athletics program is self-supporting, but maybe that’s just how they spend their money. Has anyone considered the difference in salaries between faculty and coaches?
oldcommprof - May 12, 2012 at 7:37 am
Pave the field for parking, which is a particular problem at UF.
oldcommprof - May 12, 2012 at 7:43 am
Are you serious? MOST are self-supporting? Out of 120 schools playing BCS football, about 15 don’t “suck up institutional money.”
yourpathahead - May 12, 2012 at 2:36 pm
The athletic financial issues at Florida State pail in perspective to the financial burden forced one students at the non-revenue producing Division 1 schools. 10% of the Florida State budget is comprised of subsidies (athletic fees and other university support), with the athletic fee being $215 per year.
One example from our study of selected D1 universities – the subsidized percentage of the athletic budget is 92%, meaning only 8% of the cost of operating the athletic department is generated by athletics. Last year athletic ticket sales at this institution were $31,000 and contributions to athletics were $33,000 – lest than 1% of athletic expenses. The majority of the revenue generated is by the basketball team getting paid appearance fees to play at the major schools. Of the $9,000 tuition last year at this public institution, approximately $1,200 was allocated to the athletic department (15% of tuition). The institution came in dead last in the conference all sports competition.
It is a commuter institution, and a recent poll of graduates indicated that 77% had never attended an athletic event at their alma mater. Our estimates are that students there graduates with average debt of over $29,200. Out estimates is that slightly over 20% of this debt is attributable to to athletic fees, so a majority of this institution’s graduates and non graduates will be paying for athletics in which they never attended or participated through student loans.
foresight - May 13, 2012 at 8:27 am
It is just a matter of time before Title IX comes under scrutiny for these college costs and debt.
pianiste - May 13, 2012 at 10:24 am
Right. If you’ve an economic choice between equal rights and access for women, and football–remember, that there are no women’s college football teams, and that there’s a “football exception” for Title IX–choose…football!
yourpathahead - May 13, 2012 at 12:52 pm
According to the NCAA’s annual Revenues and Expenses report to account for 2004-2010:
http://www.onthebanks.com/2011/12/11/2628354/which-college-sports-make-or-lose-money
The average BCS football program over this period generated $16,210,000 in revenues, and has corresponding expenses of $12,367,000. The average women’s volleyball team in the 120 BCS institutions generated $78,000 in revenue and has corresponding expenses of $927,000. Men’s football and basketball generate a “profit”, and all other sports must be subsidized from these profits, to the extent they exist, and then allocation from operating funds of the university, which generally means tuition. In 2004-2010, according to this information from the NCAA, men’s teams generated an average of$24 million in revenues in relation to $27.5 million in expenses. Women’s teams generated $1.4 million in revenues, while their related expenses averaged $14.3 million.
Therefore, over this 7 year period women’s sports just at the “major” institutions were subsidized well over $100,000,000. The majority of these funds come from tuition, which, in turn, is largely financed due to the obscene increases in tuition over the last 30 years.
For the FBS institutions – The median negative net generated revenue for all schools, representing expenses in excess of generated revenues, were $9,446,000 in 2010.
For the FCS institutions – The median negative net generated revenue, representing expenses in excess of generated revenues moved from $7,121,000 in 2006 to $7,441,000 in 2007, $7,937,000 in 2008, $8,643,000 in 2009 and $9,189,000 in 2010. Thus, the median losses for the subdivision’s schools continue to grow, increasing by 6.3 percent in 2010.
For the D1 institutions without football – The median negative net generated revenue for 2010, representing expenses in excess of generated revenues, at $8,597,000, reflects a 3 percent increase from 2009.
Only the top 20 (approximately) majors are generative – meaning athletic programs are self-sustaining. Approximately 100 other “majors” average a deficit of over $10 Million annually. Rutgers, for example, has a cumulative deficit of over $115 million over the last 5 years – fund, it could be argued, that are being diverted from the academic mission of the university.
In our market economy, we have a choice where to shop, where to live, etc. In deciding where to have dinner, our choice is largely one of value – the quality in relation to the price. Restaurants of less value are not subsidized by the best performing restaurants in efforts to make all restaurants “equal”. Yet in college athletics, funds are taken from the sources that generate the revenue and redistributed to the programs that are not self-sustaining.
Our argument is clearly this – now that subsidies to Division 1 athletics programs are over $3.2 billion annually, and over $5 billion nationally, what is the effect of athletic deficit spending in relation to providing avenues for cost effective higher education.
In my original post above, I state that at one D1 institution 15% of tuition, or over $1,200 annually is allocated from tuition to subsidize athletics, yet 77% of graduates state they never attended an athletic event. At this institution, over the 5 year period beginning in 2006, athletic spending increased more than three-fold, while student athletic fees charged increased more than four-fold.
If a student does not have a car, the student does not pay a parking fee. If a student does not take a lab, there is no lab fee. Should students have options to choose if they support athletics, or to choose just to “purchase” the academic offerings of an institution? By making athletic fees optional, the market makes the economic decision.
Winston Blake - May 13, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Well, having your foot in your mouth and your head up your anus is certainly an acrobatic feat… have you thought about gymnastics?
Winston Blake - May 13, 2012 at 6:00 pm
What recovery are you talking about?
This is the fourth “summer of recovery.”
Daniel Freysinger - May 14, 2012 at 7:23 am
I fail to see what athletics have to do with educating my student. This monster that continues to feed on the blood of parents and students needs to die a quick death so educators can focus on their job of educating students. I guess we have to get them to actually stand in a classroom instead of hiding in a lab though.
Yes, I am a disgruntled parent struggling to pay for college.
misscreant - May 15, 2012 at 3:48 pm
Hi, my name is Misscreant and I’m a college football addict. (“Hello, Misscreant…”) I know it’s wrong, but I just can’t help it. I’ve tried to quit many times, but I can’t do it without help. You can’t imagine my shame – my poor husband (who went to a small school in NC with a Bridge team) gazes at me with a mixture of love and pity on Saturday mornings while ESPN Game Day is getting cranked up…and I am transfixed throughout the day, from the SEC all the way through the PAC-12.
I suppose it’s like Twinkies – really, really wrong in so many ways, but soooo wonderful while you’re eating them…
pianiste - May 15, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Maybe there’s a Bowl Championship Series Anonymous meeting in misscreant’s area. She (one presumes misscreant is a she) could follow its 12 steps, starting with admitting she’s lost control of her life, and working her way through admitting to another person all the wrong that she’s done, to making amends to people she’s harmed, and so on. She obviously knows that hers is a pointless, guilty and tortured existence, filled with academic corruption, concussions, exploitation, the Bobby Petrinos and Dennis Ericksons of the world, vulgarity and yahooism, etc. Help is available, though. A BCSA meeting would welcome her.
misscreant - May 16, 2012 at 3:20 pm
I would gladly attend a BCSA support group, but only if I could be assured of the vulgarity and yahooism.
comobajarp1m - May 16, 2012 at 4:50 pm
Se aproxima un evento importante para tu vida dentro de poco, es normal que surja la pregunta ¿Como bajar de peso en un mes? http://consejosparabajardepeso.org/como-bajar-de-peso-en-un-mes/
pianiste - May 18, 2012 at 8:34 am
Well, if misscreant attends, the amount of those will rise. (Sorry–a little nasty, but when somebody throws you a high, hanging curve like that, you gotta take it yard.)
seraphpendragon - May 21, 2012 at 2:27 pm
I’m here to tell you that they are not self-supporting. They simply do not bring in millions in ticket sales etc, nor is the giving anywhere near their output. And yes, that giving would disappear if the sports did, but so what? It’s stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime.