On August 5, while reviewing my students’ papers in their blogs on one screen, a fascinating TECADV-L discussion on “tools for online advising” was occurring on the second screen. I left the papers for a while to read some of the messages and to post one of my own. The version below is pretty much what I posted, with a few minor edits in the large paragraph toward the end.
RE: Tools for online advising
From: James Shimabukuro [jamess@hawaii.edu]
Sent: Tue 8/5/2008 11:15 AM
To: ‘NACADA [National ACademic ADvising Association] Commission on Technology in Advising’
[mailto:TECADV-L@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU]
There’s a lot of tech out there that’ll help in online advising, but as I glance through the posts in this thread, I can’t help wondering if we’re not barking up the wrong tree. In the early stages of adoption of new tech, we go through an awkward phase in which the content of the new is the old tech. Thus we had talking heads in early TV, a throwback to radio. In online advising, we may be experiencing the same, trying to recreate or transport the F2F, one-on-one office model to the virtual world.
The problem, however, is that this office model begs the question: If tech has made it possible for us to synchronously meet and communicate from anywhere (and asynchronously at any time), regardless of where we are on or off this planet, then why limit ourselves to the idea of office and the technology that it represents?
The first step in trying to answer this question is to move outside the office model and really look at how our students are communicating with one another, or, more accurately, at the way info tech is changing the way they view the world, themselves, and others. From their perspective, driving miles through traffic congestion to attend a class, to borrow a book at a library, to see a video, to register for classes, to pay tuition, or to attend a meeting is tantamount to walking when the alternative is driving. Why, they wonder, can’t we simply do it via eletronic tech?
Which brings us back to the question: Is there a better way to advise online? Or, in keeping with the direction of this reply, Is there a better way to advise online with a new model that’s based on tech that our students are using?
The honest answer is, I’m not sure — but it wouldn’t hurt to explore and experiment.
For example, social networking (SN) really boils down to individuals creating a presence, identity, or persona in the virtual world. This isn’t a static, cardboard webpage but a dynamic, organic, interactive electronic persona “who” is there 24-7-365. And this persona can be adjusted for different audiences, e.g., for family, friends, classmates, professors, advisors, etc. Over time, students build this epersona to the point where it comprises the key elements that define who they are for particular audiences.
The question for us as educators is, How can we work within this realm of epersonas? How can we accomplish the ultimate purposes of advising via this virtual SN model of dynamic, interactive epersonas?
The answers are there for the taking, but without actually incorporating them into our personal lives, my guess is that they won’t seem “real” to most of us. We’ll continue to drive through morning traffic to sit in our offices, and we’ll continue to use our office model as a base for incorporating change — rather than the other way around. And we’ll continue to ask how we can use the new to perpetuate the old.
If we were to do the unthinkable and abandon our hallowed offices and move advising into the virtual world of epersonas, how would we function?
This is the question, I think, we ought to be asking. I don’t have the answer, but like the rest of you, I have ideas.
For example, one possibility is to create an advising environment that optimizes interaction between and among advisor and student epersonas. Yes, advisors would create and work “through” their epersonas. Thus, instead of meeting F2F or electronically in an office, they’ll interact via their epersonas or their online selves in the virtual world.
Before I go any further, I should say that I’m definitely not advocating virtual reality (or VR) models. These have their own built-in anachronisms that render them obsolete from the get go.
Back to the social networking (SN) model: Students would construct an advisee epersona and invest it with the kinds of info and features that would help them get the most out of online advising, and advisors would do the same on their end, i.e., build an advisor epersona that allows them to make the most of the SN model to provide advising services or, perhaps more accurately, advising guidance.
The key advantage of the SN advising model is that it extends the walls of the old office to incorporate the entire universe of information, services, and human resources in seamless links that expand outward indefinitely — in space and time. Thus, the advisor’s role changes dramatically from one who has the answers to one who can guide the student through the universe of answers to the ones that may best fit the student — but the student makes the actual decisions. And once the student understands this empowering process, she/he will become less dependent on the advisor and increasingly independent in her ability to explore and find her own answers — not just for academic, personal, or career decisions right now but for the rest of her life. Thus, students quickly become assets in the advising SN, able to serve as peer guides to classmates who’re asking similar questions. In this scenario, the advisor is not alone is providing guidance. The entire “village,” as it were, is part of the SN, and each member is a potential source of guidance.
I’d better stop here. My apologies for rambling, and if I’ve gotten way off topic, I apologize for that, too.
Now, I’ll have to get back to reviewing my students’ papers, which are sitting in their blogs.
Jim Shimabukuro (8.5.08)
Kapi`olani CC
james@hawaii.edu
[Shimabukuro, James. A New Model for Advising. Windblown Bytes. 2008-10-02. URL:http://windblownbytes.wordpress.com/2008/08/22/a-new-model-for-advising/. Accessed: 2008-10-02. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5bGIfPcki)]