There is nothing to say here thatwould compare in importance to what happened last month in Boston. Yet part ofthe story has important implications for us: the coming of age of social media.
We all saw the incredible rolesocial media played on the national stage in reporting the story and assistingin its outcome. There are some lessons we can take away from last month’sevents as to how we should use the power of social media in learning. What arethe benefits and what are the pitfalls?
Social media has speed, reach, and scalability
Boston authorities relied onsocial media to relay details about suspects and to provide safety instructions.Within minutes, hundreds of thousands of people had access to information froma variety of social media outlets, and the authorities cited social media asvery helpful in the investigation.
In our world, social media’s speed,reach, and scalability makes it easier than ever to instantly touch employees,suppliers, and customers with content relevant to their needs, interests, andjob requirements precisely when they need it. Social media can support thelearning and performance of salespeople, call center staff, technicians, HRprofessionals, engineers, executives, trainers, and many others, not to mentionthe tremendous value it can bring to students at all abilities and levels ofeducation. That’s why so many businesses, government agencies, and educatorsare seriously looking into social learning.
Social media supports inclusiveness and community
In Boston, social media broughtpeople together, across distance, to share experiences—good and bad—as acommunity. It had purpose. There wasa clear sense of everyone’s shared stake in the outcome.
We work toachieve similar goals through communities of practice, which are, by definition,social. Social media enables community members to work as a team, create andshare content, test new ways of doing things, and above all, learn from eachother. That’s the good news; now the bad…
Social media can be wrong
Most of us are aware of the problemsBoston faced with inaccuracies relayed via social media. Many of these reportsquickly went viral. Traditional and “new” media got a lot right, but they alsogot some of it very wrong. Bad information instantly reached millions of people.Because of the exponential effect of social-message proliferation, officialshad to be extra vigilant to quickly, forcefully, and repeatedly debunk wronginformation. But their efforts weren’t always enough.
Boston isn’t unique. For example,on April 23, the Associated Press Twitter account was hacked, and someoneposted a single erroneous tweet of anexplosion at the White House. Within minutes, it was re-tweeted over 3,000times before they shut the feed down, but the damage was already done. US stockstumbled, temporarily wiping out $140 billion in market value. It doesn’t takemuch to send lots of people down the wrong road.
We can make the same mistakes ifwe are not careful about the accuracy and relevance of what we publish, or how clearlywe communicate it. If we mess up, the inherent power of social media will make thingsfar worse. Remember, the more that people believe in the authority of thesocial media channel, the more likely they are to believe and act on theinformation, with disastrous consequences if it’s wrong.
Not all authors are experts
Authority may lie in the socialmedia channel, but it also lies with the author, the actual person who tweets,posts, and blogs. In Boston, hundreds of people, from professional journaliststo mere onlookers, took to social media. They provided commentary andexpertise, but in too many cases it was neither authoritative nor well done,leading to confusion and a lack of trustworthiness.
With social learning, it is just asimportant to certify the legitimacy of content creators as it is to certify the legitimacy of the organizationalcontent sponsors. Just becauseeveryone can publish content doesn’tmean everyone should. It’s a big leapfrom sharing ideas among colleagues to distributing information to everyone asde facto truth. If you are doing the latter, be sure your authors are qualifiedand trusted.
Even when the content is right, and important, social media canbe overwhelming
Information overload defeats goodinformation. The millions of tweets, posts, links, and blogs about the Bostontragedy were impossible to manage, especially on the receiving end. The nonstopbombardment of content may have satisfied some people’s need for every detail,every minute, but many others might have shut down their feeds—and their minds—hadthe crisis had gone on much longer.
We are also overwhelmed withcontent at work. It’s no wonder we ignore our burgeoning inbox and stop payingattention to every memo, product update, or piece of other news that comes ourway. It’s like drinking from a fire hydrant. Social media didn’t cause this,but it greatly exacerbated the problem. How can we learn via electronic media,social or otherwise, when the gushing information stream never, ever ends?
What about eLearning?
Traditional eLearning now competeswith social media and everything else for our increasingly limited attentionspan. Can we move forward on both fronts independently?Not likely. Now that everyone can be instant content consumers and instant content creators, let’sthink about where to go from here. Solid decisions about when to use eLearningand when to use social media, what content should be disseminated through each(and who should create it), and how these tools can be used together is key. Prioritizingcontent, controlling quality, and personalizing it for each unique user andneed are the next steps.
If there was one positive side towhat happened in Boston, it may be the power of social media to do good, butonly if we use it in the right ways. We must take this to heart in our work aswell.
