Week 3 - Suffs, Literacy, and Web 2.0

For this week’s topically relevant blog entry, I want to connect my overall topic with a musical that has personally influenced me: Suffs, created by Shaina Taub. Suffs tells the story of the American women’s suffrage movement and the relationships, conflicts, and collective actions that shaped the fight for women’s voting rights (PBS, 2026). A recorded Broadway version of Suffs is available through PBS Great Performances, and PBS also provides clips such as “Wait My Turn,” which highlights Ida B. Wells confronting the racial exclusions within the suffrage movement (PBS, 2026). I was drawn to this musical not only for its music and storytelling, but also for how it shows how social movements depend on communication, community, public voice, and literacy. Watching Suffs made me think about literacy in a broader way. Literacy is not only the ability to read and write. It is also the ability to understand power, participate in public life, tell stories, use available communication tools, and make one’s voice heard.

Figure 1 

Production photo from Suffs on Broadway. From “Suffs Sets Closing Date on Broadway,” by P. A. Smith, 2024, Broadway Direct. Copyright 2024 by Broadway Direct.

The suffrage movement was not built by isolated individuals. It depended on networks of organizers, writers, speakers, activists, and community members who shared information, developed strategies, disagreed with one another, and kept working toward a collective goal. In this sense, Suffs helps me see community as something active and relational. A community is not simply a group of people with the same label. It requires repeated interaction, shared purpose, norms, conflict, leadership, and collective learning.

This idea connects to my topic of social media tools in higher education. In today’s higher education context, students also build learning communities and professional networks through digital platforms and other online spaces. These platforms can help students access information, connect with others, and develop professional identities. However, the platform itself does not automatically create a community. People need to interact meaningfully over time, recognize shared goals, and build some level of trust to build a community.

Suffs also helps me think about literacy as participation. The suffragists needed political literacy, public communication skills, strategic knowledge, and community networks to push for change. Similarly, students in higher education need more than basic digital access. They need digital literacy, professional literacy, and network literacy. They need to know how to evaluate information, participate in online communities, manage their digital identities, ask for support, and contribute to shared knowledge. Dabbagh and Kitsantas (2012) explain that Personal Learning Environments can support self-regulated learning by connecting formal and informal learning through social media tools. This suggests that social media can support student learning when students use it intentionally rather than passively.

This is where Suffs becomes meaningful to me beyond a musical. It reminds me that literacy and participation are connected to power. Who gets to speak? Who is heard? Who is included in the community? Who is left out? The women’s suffrage movement itself was not perfect; it involved racial exclusion, strategic disagreements, and tensions over whose rights were at the center. That complexity matters because online learning communities also reproduce power dynamics. Some voices become more visible than others. Some people feel safe participating, while others remain silent or become lurkers.

Overall, Suffs helps me connect literacy, community, and higher education in a more personal way. The musical shows that social change depends on people learning together, organizing together, and using communication tools to make their voices public. Students need guidance, models, privacy protection, and opportunities for low-risk participation. This week helped me understand that digital literacy is about learning how to participate ethically, critically, and purposefully in communities that shape knowledge, identity, and opportunity.

References

Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3–8.

PBS. (2026). Suffs. Great Performances. https://www.pbs.org/wnet/gperf/suffs-about/17498/ 

Smith, P. A. (2024, October 11). Suffs sets closing date on Broadway. Broadway Direct. https://broadwaydirect.com/suffs-sets-closing-date-on-broadway/ 

Week 3 Reflection

This week’s readings helped me think more deeply about the difference between simply using social media and actually participating in an online community or Personal/Professional Learning Network (PLN). In previous weeks, I focused more on social media platforms and the idea of networked individuals. This week, I began to think more carefully about what makes an online space meaningful for learning. A platform alone does not automatically create a community; shared interests, repeated interaction, norms, trust, and a sense of relationship among members can create a real community.

One idea that stood out to me is that online learning often happens across the boundary between formal and informal learning. Greenhow and Lewin (2016) argue that social media challenges the traditional separation between school-based learning and everyday learning. This made me reflect on how much of my own learning happens outside of formal course spaces. For example, YouTube videos are not traditional classrooms, but they have shaped how I understand many concepts through the videos themselves and their comments. Through these platforms, students can learn from alumni, employers, peers, and professionals. This kind of learning is informal, but it can still be very important for students’ academic and professional development.

This week also helped me understand PLNs as intentional learning systems. Dabbagh and Kitsantas (2012) explain that Personal Learning Environments can support self-regulated learning by helping students connect formal and informal learning through social media tools. This connects strongly to my own interest in social media tools and higher education. Students do not only learn from instructors; they also learn by building networks, following professional conversations, asking questions, and collecting resources. However, I also realized that building a PLN is not automatic. Students may know how to use social media personally, but they may still need guidance on using it professionally or academically.

The discussion about online communities also made me think about lurking. I used to see lurking as passive or less valuable than active participation. However, this week helped me see lurking as part of the learning process. New members often need time to observe community norms before they feel comfortable contributing. Dennen (2026) frames this movement as a shift from “lurkers” to “networkers,” suggesting that lurking need not be the endpoint. It can be an early stage of participation. This connects to my plan for the community assignment, where I want to observe an international student community on Reddit as a lurker while participating more actively in a LinkedIn community. I expect these two experiences to feel very different because Reddit offers greater anonymity, while LinkedIn requires a more visible professional identity.

Overall, Week 3 helped me understand that online communities and PLNs are not just collections of people or tools. A hashtag, LinkedIn group, Facebook group, or Reddit forum is not, in and of itself, a community. It becomes more community-like when members interact over time, recognize shared goals, and create value for one another. As an educator, I think this means we should not simply ask students to “go online” or “participate.” Instead, we need to help students understand how to evaluate online spaces, protect their privacy, observe community norms, and gradually move from consuming information to contributing meaningfully. This week helped me see social media not only as a set of tools but also as a set of potential learning communities that require intentional design and thoughtful participation.

References

Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3–8.

Dennen, V. P. (2026). From lurkers to networkers: Cultural and epistemic dimensions of developing professional learning networks in online graduate education. Proceedings of the International Conference on Networked Learning, 15.

Greenhow, C., & Lewin, C. (2016). Social media and education: Reconceptualizing the boundaries of formal and informal learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 41(1), 6–30.

Reflecting on Handshake and LinkedIn

 During my undergraduate studies, I also took courses that mentioned and encouraged students to use social networking platforms such as LinkedIn and Handshake. I used Handshake and LinkedIn mainly to search for internships, campus jobs, career events, and employer information. It helped me understand the kinds of opportunities available and the skills employers expected from students. LinkedIn served a slightly different purpose. I used it to build a professional identity, connect with classmates, alumni, and professionals, and learn how other people described their educational and work experiences. These platforms were not part of a formal classroom, but they still shaped my higher education experience. They helped me learn the “hidden curriculum” of career preparation, such as how to present myself professionally, how to search for opportunities, and how to understand career pathways.

This week’s readings helped me reflect on how social media tools are used in higher education. This connects to Rainie and Wellman’s (2013) idea of the networked individual. In networked life, students do not only rely on one institution, one instructor, or one classroom for information. Instead, they learn through many overlapping networks, including peers, alumni, employers, online platforms, and professional communities. Handshake and LinkedIn show how higher education learning can extend beyond the classroom into career networks. Students who are well-connected may gain access to more information, advice, and opportunities. However, students who are less connected may not benefit as much. This means that social media tools can support learning, but they can also reproduce inequality if some students do not know how to use them or do not feel confident participating.

The Visitors and Residents framework also helps me understand my experience (White & Le Cornu, 2017). On Handshake, I was often more like a Visitor. I entered the platform to complete a task, such as finding a job posting or registering for an event, and then I left. On LinkedIn, I gradually became more of a Resident by creating a profile, connecting with people, and leaving visible traces of my professional identity. White and Le Cornu’s (2017) framework is helpful because it focuses on how people use digital spaces instead of assuming behavior based on age.

For instructors, this raises an important question: How can they encourage student participation online while still protecting privacy and creating a safe learning environment? I think instructors should first avoid assuming that all students are equally comfortable online. Participation should not always require students to use public platforms or expose their personal identities. Instead, instructors can offer options. Also, instructors should clearly explain the purpose of online participation. Students are more likely to participate when they understand why the activity matters for their learning. For example, if students are asked to use LinkedIn, the instructor should explain whether the goal is professional identity development, networking, career exploration, or reflection. The activity should not just be “use social media” because students are assumed to like it. Finally, instructors should create community guidelines. A safe online learning environment needs clear expectations around respectful communication, privacy, feedback, and consent. Students should know that they do not have to share any personal information they are uncomfortable with. They should also know how their posts, comments, or digital artifacts will be used and assessed.

Overall, platforms like Handshake and LinkedIn can support learning, networking, identity development, and career preparation in higher education. However, these benefits are not automatic. Students need guidance, privacy protection, and supportive learning design. Instructors should help students become thoughtful and ethical participants in networked learning spaces, rather than assuming that students already know how to do this.

References:

Rainie, L. & Wellman, B. (2013). Networked: The new social operating systemLinks to an external site.. Boston, MA: MIT Press. [eBook - FSU access]

White, D. S., & Le Cornu, A. (2017). Using ‘Visitors and Residents’ to visualise digital practicesLinks to an external site.. First Monday, 22(8). doi:10.5210/fm.v22i8.7802

Week 2 Reflection

This week's readings helped me reflect more deeply on the significance of learning and participating within the online world. I found this week's material truly captivating, as I learned how people consume, create, share, question, and sometimes even resist information across social media and online networks. 

One concept that impressed me is the "hive mind," or collective intelligence. Our knowledge can be enhanced by others' knowledge. For example, if I don't understand a concept, I can search for explanations, watch tutorials, or ask questions in online communities. This makes learning more convenient and flexible. However, the hive mind is not always reliable. Often, online knowledge contains misinformation, superficial explanations, biases, or content influenced by algorithms. According to Dai et al. (2025), recommendation algorithms may overload users with repetitive or overly personalized content. I realized that collective intelligence still requires individual judgment and critical thinking. Students who actively evaluate, connect with, and contribute knowledge can benefit from the hive mind. However, if students only passively accept information filtered by algorithms without questioning its credibility, the hive mind can actually restrict learning.

Another important takeaway is that being young or active online doesn't automatically make someone adept at digital skills. The "digital native" label assumes that students who grew up with technology are naturally adept at using it. However, this week's readings challenge that assumption. According to Sorrentino (2019), the digital-native metaphor can be misleading because it implies innate ability rather than learning. Kirschner and De Bruyckere (2017) also mentioned that students have grown up with digital media, but that doesn't mean they're information-skilled. Reflecting on this made me think about my own experiences. Even if I am comfortable using social media, search engines, and messaging apps, that does not mean I am familiar with every academic or professional technology. For example, using Instagram or TikTok is very different from using academic databases, citation tools, Excel, Stata, or professional networking platforms.

Overall, my greatest realization is that while networked learning is undoubtedly powerful, it does not happen automatically. Students require more than just access to technology; they also need support in the various processes involved in handling information. For educators and instructional designers, this means we must not assume that students know how to learn in digital spaces simply because they use technology daily. Instead, we need to design learning experiences that help students become more critical, proactive, and reflective participants within networked environments.

Reference:

Dai, Q., Zhang, J., Zha, X., & Gao, Y. (2025). To be mild or be severe? Digital natives’ algorithmic resistance behavior in the mobile social media intelligent recommendation environmentLinks to an external site.. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 1-24.

Kirschner, P. A., & De Bruyckere, P. (2017). The myths of the digital native and the multitaskerLinks to an external site.. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 135-142. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.001

Sorrentino, P. (2018). The mystery of the digital natives' existence: Questioning the validity of the Prenskian metaphorLinks to an external site.. First Monday, 23(10). doi: 10.5210/fm.v23i10.9434

Connecting Web 2.0 to Higher Education

Web 2.0 should transcend being just a definition. Therefore, I am considering how Web 2.0 relates to my research interest in higher education. I believe that Web 2.0 is not merely a set of tools; it is also about participation, interaction, sharing, and the co-creation of knowledge. I believe that Web 2.0 is not only a set of tools; it is also about participation, interaction, sharing, and the co-creation of knowledge. In higher education, students move beyond simply receiving knowledge to become active participants in the learning process.

One connection I see is student engagement. In higher education, engagement is often discussed as students invest time, energy, and effort in their academic pursuits. Web 2.0 tools can create more spaces for students to engage beyond the physical classroom. Kietzmann et al. (2011) explain that social media comprises several functional building blocks, including identity, conversations, sharing, relationships, reputation, and groups. For example, students can write blog posts, comment on classmates’ ideas, share resources, or participate in online communities related to their academic interests, just as in this class. These building blocks show that social media can support different kinds of learning interactions, not just information delivery.

This is also meaningful for students' sense of belonging. Many students, especially first-generation, international, and marginalized students, may struggle to find community in higher education. Web 2.0 spaces can help students connect with peers, mentors, and professional communities. For example, an international student might use social media to find advice about academic writing, campus life, or career development. A student interested in a specific field might use blogs, hashtags, or online groups to find people with similar interests. These online networks do not replace face-to-face relationships, but they can extend students’ support systems.

Another important connection is the idea of students as knowledge creators. Bruns (2008) uses the concept of “produsage” to describe how users in Web 2.0 environments are both producers and users. In higher education, students can also create knowledge through discussion posts and collaborative online work. This can make learning more active and meaningful.

However, Web 2.0 also raises important concerns for higher education. Public online participation can create risks related to privacy, digital footprints, misinformation, and unequal access. This is important because higher education should not force students to give up their privacy to participate in learning. 

Overall, I think Web 2.0 matters to higher education because it changes how students learn, connect, and participate. It moves learning beyond one-way information delivery and opens possibilities for interaction, community-building, and student voice. For me, this is especially connected to my interest in mentoring and belonging. If used thoughtfully, Web 2.0 tools can help higher education institutions create more connected and supportive learning environments. However, educators also need to design these spaces carefully so that students feel safe, respected, and able to participate in ways that fit their needs.

Week 1: Reflecting on Web 2.0

Before taking this course, I had never heard of Web 2.0. This week's course module helped me become acquainted with Web 2.0 and rethink its true meaning. Initially, I began to familiarize myself with Web 2.0, though I primarily associated it with social media platforms, such as blogs, Instagram, YouTube, or X. However, after reading the course materials, I realized that Web 2.0 entails much more than simply using specific tools; it is fundamentally about a transformation in how people engage in online activities. Users are not just reading or passively receiving information, but they can now comment, share, create, adapt, and collaboratively construct knowledge with others.

One concept that struck me was the distinction between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. Web 1.0 is characterized as a "read-only" web, where most people merely consume information created by a select few producers. In contrast, Web 2.0 is a "read-write" web, in which normal users can also become content contributors (Dennen, 2020; Kietzmann et al., 2011). Every user is simultaneously a producer and a consumer of information. This prompted me to reflect on my own internet habits. At times, I still engage with the internet in a Web 1.0 fashion. For instance, by reading articles or watching videos without interacting. Sometimes, however, I am more active-for example, by commenting, saving resources, sharing posts, or creating my own content. Upon understanding this, I realized that Web 2.0 doesn't work automatically; instead, it is entirely a function of the people who choose to use these tools.

In the Web 2.0 era, users are not merely consumers or producers; they can simultaneously assume both roles (Bruns, 2008). This concept is closely relevant to education. Students need not simply acquire knowledge from their teachers; they can also become creators of knowledge by writing blog posts, sharing resources, commenting on classmates' assignments, and participating in online communities.

Overall, my greatest takeaway from the first week is this: Web 2.0 is not merely a collection of technologies, but rather a participatory mode of learning and communication. In this course, I hope my blog will serve not only as a platform for completing assignments but also as a tool for reflection and exploration. As I participate in this process, I am both a learner and a producer of information.