Backchannel Etiquette is a Matter of Good Work

by Amma Marfo

“#NACA13 the awkward moment when bubba sparks [sic] was here the entire weekend and people just now noticed it”

“I’m at a wake…no wait im [sic] at block booking. Can we use 5 hour energy instead of paddles?#NACA13”

“Go home#NACA13, you’re drunk”

The snippets above are excerpts from a backchannel, or a collection of messages arranged topically, of thousands of Tweets sent during the 2013 National Association for Campus Activities Conference in Nashville, TN. NACA is a professional organization for student activities; its conferences target higher education professionals and professional vendors, and is heavily attended by college-aged students. A concern voiced in the latter half of the conference was the disturbingly frequent use of the backchannel as a means to demean performers, conduct inappropriate or irrelevant discussions, and belittle individual attendees. My colleague Christopher Conzen of Suffolk County Community College (NY) and I tasked ourselves with the composition of an article for the governing body’s magazine, designed to drive home a simple point: conscientious behavior on a backchannel, particularly for the backchannel of a conference, is a matter of GoodWork. The piece will appear in the Campus Activities Programming magazine this fall.  In this essay, I report how the GoodWork tenets of Mission and the Mirror Test (Personal and Professional versions) create a means for students to be more aware of the effects of their backchannel messages on themselves and others and to act more conscientiously when authoring backchannel messages.

Let me first unpack explain the term “backchannel”. At conferences, a backchannel can be collected from social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, or even Instagram, and used by those at the conference to keep in touch with attendees and follow up on questions from presentations. The backchannel can also serve as a record of conference proceedings, for those unable to attend but wishing to follow along from home. With all that said, the integrity of a backchannel is necessarily tied to its proper use. Improper or impolite use of a backchannel may mean that the information shared loses credibility, as do those who share it.

I found that the GoodWork Project provides a framework that has proved useful for helping students (and to a certain extent, professionals) attending the conference to understand the many lenses through which their 140 character messages might be viewed. By recommending impressions of the Mission and Mirror Test tenets to emphasize the importance of excellence, ethics, and engagement, we simplified a conversation that otherwise is fraught with “what if’s, “what abuts, and a multitude of qualifying questions. Here’s how we found these tenets to be applicable to promoting more responsible engagement with the backchannel.

(1) Mission

As professional members and occasional volunteers for the National Association for Campus Activities, Chris and I are aware of the mission of the organization. However, it was quickly apparent over the course of the conference that student delegates, as well as less involved professionals, might not be. The mission is as follows:

The National Association for Campus Activities™ (NACA) advances campus activities in higher education through a business and learning partnership, creating educational and business opportunities for its school and professional members.

The operative term, when considering backchannel etiquette, is “creating educational and business opportunities”. Messages rife with crudeness and designed to demean individuals contribute little to that goal. As such, we encourage advisors to caution students that statements of this nature not only compromise the spirit of the organization, but are a clear sign of disengagement from the learning opportunity at hand.  Additionally, viewers may soon question the credibility of the message’s author. To keep mission in mind, we posited, is to ensure that any messages sent identifying the organization are consistent with its key goals.

(2) Mirror Test, Personal Version

For many students, NACA is one of few opportunities to meet fellow students around the country that program for their campuses. Connections are made and networking occurs. Students ask their new connections to “friend” or “follow” them and these brief messages form the basis of new relationships. In what manner do these messages serve to mirror? That is to say, are the messages they send reflecting their true personalities? Or are Tweets, Instagram pictures, and Facebook posts with the conference tag creating “funhouse” versions of these students, versions that are not consistent with whom they believe themselves to be?

More and more, we are seeing that our students (and again, some professionals are still learning too!) aren’t fully aware of how they appear to others via their social media presence. I’ve tried to use the GoodWork tenets to help student affairs professionals guide students toward a more authentic expression of their daily lives. So many colleagues and friends I’ve spoken with about social media have become disillusioned with the negativity it seems to breed. Messages that darkened the feed of the NACA conference seemed to be fueled by an underlying current of negativity. This perceived pessimism can affect how competent, engaged, or ethical people appear. Instead I urge contemplation and redirection of frustration to balance perspectives shared online. But above all, we encourage those who work with students to invite the questions “When they read your tweets or Facebook posts about the event, what kind of person will they see in those messages? And does that image match the person you are the other 360 days of the year, when you’re not at an NACA event?”

(3) Mirror Test, Professional Version

Working in campus activities, or in any leadership role on a college campus, can inform one’s professional endeavors, both in skills learned and career paths taken. And although it has become cliché to call students’ attention to the “electronic trail” they’re leaving for potential employers to follow, we reminded students that posts can be seen by anyone viewing the conference tag. What’s more, those who wish to work in student affairs could be unexpectedly highlighting these posts, ensuring potential supervisors see them. Additionally, we widened that scope to include fellow students who could be selecting them for student leadership positions. In the absence of an understanding of NACA and what the organization does, posts could be seen as cruel, unprofessional, and off-putting, thus hindering their chances for selection.

So with these points all addressed, how should those who are stewards of GoodWork try to instill those principles in students?

●        Act when you see something questionable. Be it reaching out online, or using social media platforms as conduits to facilitate a face to face conversation, feel empowered to “call out” bad behavior and start a conversation about it.

●        Respond to concerns or complaints voiced. Often messages of frustration or even seeming indifference are a veiled request to be heard. Once you act, be open to helping the disgruntled party solve a problem. Your response could engender good will and help change his or her mindset about the organization.

●        Model how you want those around you to behave. There is a Chinese proverb, “Hearing something five hundred times is not as good as seeing it once.” To garner proper behavior from students and colleagues, you must show them what you believe excellent, ethical, and engaged dialogue looks like. Set an authentic standard. Chances are, they will follow suit.

Have you seen problems with backchannel use in your students or colleagues? How was it resolved? What methods worked for you?

Good Work Conference Reflections: A Matter of Consistency

by Marco Boffi

Upon returning to Italy after the GoodWork Conference: “Developing Responsible, Caring, & Balanced Youth”, in Dedham, MA, I was thrown again into the messy political debate raging on in my country. After the results of the elections, it took about two months before the so-called political class managed to form a new government. Among the many issues at stake was how to act effectively and consistently with the promises made during the electoral campaign, which is a subject that has received minimal attention so far. And the present government doesn’t seem able to change this bad attitude: the very composition of its members goes completely against the promises made during the electoral campaign, which is not a good premise for future initiatives. A trend to first show concern for the common good, and then to contradict that impression by focusing on one’s self-interest still seems to prevail in this environment. This impression struck me even more forcefully after the conference, probably for good reasons.

In my view, the connection between the strictly political world and Good Work reflections is closer than it seems. In 2011, two incidents in Europe – with vastly different outcomes –  illustrate this point. The first one took place in Germany, when then Minister of Defense Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, a popular politician in the country, was found guilty of plagiarism in the writing of his doctoral thesis. The case quickly garnered public attention, and Guttenberg resigned from all political offices. The second event occurred at approximately the same time in Italy. Antonio Razzi, a member of the Italian Parliament, was secretly recorded while advising a colleague to follow his practice of making political decisions for his economic benefit (which, if proven, constitutes a crime of corruption). The wide media interest didn’t greatly impact his political career, as he didn’t even resign. On the contrary, he was able to maintain his seat as a Member of the Senate in the last election.

In these examples, there is certainly a difference in the emphasis given to concepts such as  “responsibility” or “ethics” by these politicians, possibly resulting from different individual experiences. But it is equally interesting to analyze the public perception of these examples, because the reaction – or non-reaction – of citizens to such conduct is crucial in shaping a politicians’ behavior. Taking a stance against a wrong behavior, to defend in general the common interest or even only to improve the party you vote for, is an individual action with the potential to produce healthy results throughout the community. It can drive political parties to punish this conduct independently of its legal consequences, journalists to cover the story, voters to change their intentions. However, to obtain this positive contagion it is necessary to develop a critical mass which makes the change stable. If the assumption of responsibility doesn’t jump from the individual to a collective level – irrespective of how structured the group is in the beginning – the system will be able to erase the scandal without changing its own functioning. Which is exactly what has been happening in Italy during the last decades: the main concern is to hide the misbehavior instead of discrediting it, protecting life long lasting political careers. The lack of a sustained social reaction to every transgression is what in the end makes this type of behavior acceptable and even attractive to politicians.

With these thoughts in mind, I joined the conference with a spirit of exploring good connections between politics and participation. I found it in the very first plenary, when Danielle Allen pointed out the necessity of shifting our shared imagination about activism from single heroes to collective initiatives. This step is fundamental in educating youth to accept the limits of individual action, which is the premise of engaging in civic activities with others.

While a variety of participatory elements are integrated into institutional decision-making in many modern democracies, the representative model now has an even greater presence. This difference means that officials still have crucial power. As such, highlighting collective action would also play a key role in shaping the perception of what function politicians can have in our society. Such variation would occur in both a direct and indirect way.

On one hand, we would educate future politicians to perceive their role as strictly connected to civic purpose(s). Being elected and obtaining power should not be seen as a goal in itself, but as a way to fulfill collective goals. Focusing on the collective aspect of politics would also discourage the most narcissistic forms of engagement. There would always be space for charismatic figures who are able to inspire, attract, and move the citizens. But beyond this factor, we would also finally see leadership skills directed towards the service of the common good and not for the leader himself.

On the other hand, such an approach would catalyze a different view among citizens. If institutionalized forms of politics are seen as an extension of civic participation we can’t complain anymore about bad politics because we are bad politics. This realization would change our expectations about politicians, diminishing the attitude of “waiting for a savior” to fix all of our problems. It’s not necessary to be a full-time activist to play the role of watchdog. A modification of these values would significantly affect our voting behavior and accordingly the selective mechanism of politicians.

These reflections, which sound driven by common sense, are more difficult to apply than they seem. This situation has especially been true in Italy, where bad examples like the one above are becoming more and more frequent. There is a desperate need for good models to foster participation, not only as a concerned or angry reaction to injustice but also as a tempered way of conceiving our role as citizens. Envisioning personal commitment as a normal civic behavior is the key to oppose withdrawal from participative opportunities. This is where I see the strong influence that the Good Project can exert on political activities: raising the awareness of the consequences of individual actions in everyday life is an effective way of providing the citizens with the tools to take care of their own communities.

I was pleased to find out how the variety of initiatives revolving around the Good Project is consistent with such themes. I appreciated the coherence between the principles and actions that emphasized giving voice directly to the youth during the conference. It illustrated how the “good seeds” planted many years ago grew and became a blooming plant. But as gardeners of democracy, we do not only want plants to flourish but also to be fecund and give us many fruits. Gardening metaphors aside, it means that you evaluate the success of an event like this conference not only referring to the work done by the organizers but also to the participants who took part in it. Through this lens I again sensed the consistency of the project in terms of meeting responsible, caring and balanced people. I met teachers open to self-criticism, who were debating on the fact that they’re not stuck in bad schools, they are bad schools. It was a bold way of taking on the responsibility of their work. I participated in a workshop on ethics and digital life where we discussed in an informed and non-judgmental way the consequences of social media on our lives. It was so non-judgmental that we immediately shared our ideas through our avatars! I can’t wait to see such a state of awareness at a political convention debate. Meeting these individuals also reminded me of the important role of institutions in this process, that is to offer citizens adequate spaces and competent figures to manage the participatory activities. Being directly engaged is demanding and can also be frustrating, hence you cannot simply leave it to improvisation but must prepare the ground for it.

In response to Howard Gardner’s question about how we will apply the reflections developed during these days, I hope to answer in the near future with some tangible initiatives. In the end it is just a matter of consistency between ideas and actions.

Planting the Seeds of Power and Purpose: A GoodWork™-inspired Introduction to Higher Education for First-Year Students

by Mary Katherine Duncan

For several months, my colleague (Dr. Jennifer Johnson) and I have been developing a GoodWork™-inspired Summer Reading Assignment and series of Freshman Orientation workshops for first-year (often, first generation) undergraduate students. We aim to welcome young women and men to our academic community by introducing them to the three Es of GoodWork™ and helping them to understand what it means to do GoodWork™ as persons, students, and citizens at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania. After several semesters of programming and assessment of campus-wide initiatives (e.g., Summer Reading Assignment, Freshman Orientation workshop, University Seminar discussion groups, and research studies), we felt as though we had a pretty good handle on what it means to do academic GoodWork™ (i.e., excellence, ethics, and engagement as a student). We were less confident, however, in our understanding of what it means to do GoodWork™ as a citizen of the University and how to share our understanding with young people who are entering our academic community.

Participation in the GoodWork™ Conference—Developing Responsible, Caring and Balanced Youth—was instrumental in helping us to think about what it means to be a good citizen in an academic community. Two programs stood out as especially relevant to our current initiative. During one of the conference’s interactive workshops, The Pedagogy of Power, Eric Liu described citizenship as “learning how to live well with others.” Eric asked workshop attendees to consider what citizens owe each other. After several exchanges, it became clear that we owe each other the best of ourselves; that is, a daily commitment to living a life consistent with our character strengths and virtues. Eric asserted that citizenship is about using these strengths (i.e., power) in service of “leaving the joint better.” It became clear that a GoodWork™-inspired Summer Reading Assignment and Freshman Orientation should afford students the opportunity to reflect on their power and how they might employ their strengths in service of the University.

Toward the end of the conference, Bill Damon offered a plenary session about young people’s search for purpose. Bill noted that most young people are searching for purpose and that young people tend to find purpose in their own way and in their own time. Again, as we thought about our role in welcoming the Class of 2017 to Bloomsburg University, we wondered how our academic community could best support young people as they journey along their paths to living purposeful lives. Bill pointed out that young people have to define purpose for themselves. They have to own it. It must be meaningful to them. He also noted that purpose must be of consequence to the world beyond the self. Very often, our students mistake personal goals (e.g., earning a high GPA, gaining admission to graduate school, being happy, getting rich) for purpose. It will be important for us to help students understand the difference between short-horizon, self-centered goals and long-horizon, other-focused purpose. Bill’s research suggests that useful strategies for supporting youth’s search for purpose include affording young people opportunities to learn more about the community or institution needs, to observe purposeful role models who are striving to meet these needs while exhibiting moral commitment, and to discover how they can employ their own strengths and abilities in service of meeting the identified needs.

With information and insight gleaned from the GoodWork™ conference, we proposed the second annual GoodWork™-inspired Summer Reading Assignment and Freshman Orientation program. More specifically, in partial fulfillment of the Summer Reading Assignment, incoming students will write a paper on how they would like to be remembered as persons, students, and citizens of the University on their graduation day in May 2017. This legacy paper will “plant the seed” for more reflective exercises and in-depth discussions during Freshman Orientation and throughout their years of undergraduate study. During Freshman Orientation, trained student leaders will introduce the three Es of GoodWork™ and share their own stories of pursuing GoodWork™ including discussions of factors that catalyzed, sustain, and challenge their commitment to doing GoodWork™ as persons, students, and citizens of the University. Student leaders also will engage first-year students in self-reflective exercises to begin the process of exploring character strengths, values, and cognitive competencies. In addition, student leaders will lead discussions about what the University and surrounding communities need and what can be done to meet those needs in order to encourage first-year students to begin thinking about how they can employ their scholarship and good character in service of the academic and broader communities. In addition to serving as role models, student leaders will escort first-year students to an Academic Resource Fair and a Student Activities Fair where they will introduce our newest citizens to faculty and staff role models who are pursuing lives of purpose while demonstrating moral commitment. Overall, we want our students to understand that their undergraduate studies are as much about figuring out what they want to do with their lives as discovering who they are and ascertaining what they have to offer, to whom, and how.

As we partner with the Office of Academic Affairs and the Office of Student Affairs to strengthen the culture of GoodWork™ at our University, we thank the good folks at Project Zero for organizing such a thought-provoking and inspiring conference.

Conference Reflections from a Classroom Teacher: Three Human Phenomena and the Three E’s of Good Work

by Amy Hoffman

Recently, I attended the first GoodWork conference at Noble and Greenbough School in Dedham, Massachusetts. Armed with and ready to present the elementary toolkit that I had been developing with my mother, Jo Hoffman, and Good Team members Margot Locker, Wendy Fischman, and Lynn Barendsen, I arrived on that very snowy Friday not sure what to expect. I had never presented at a conference before, but I had attended several – listened to interesting people, took notes, and walked away really the same as I had entered. I had no idea how my understanding of conferences and in fact, my ideas about teaching, were about to change.

I teach a 1st and 2nd grade multiage class at a small charter school in New Jersey, and for the past two years I have been working with my young students to develop their understandings of the basic principles of GoodWork. The students have been working hard exploring ethics, excellence, and engagement through hands-on activities and class discussions. I start each year with the students by exploring the definitions of the 3 “E’s” through word mapping, looking for examples through children’s literature and narratives written for the toolkit, and ending with activities during which students write their own narratives and role-play that work. Students have benefitted from the activities, participating happily, and their understanding of concepts related to the 3 E’s has evolved since the beginning of the school year.  Nonetheless, after reflecting about my experiences at the conference, I began to formulate an idea for another entry point to explore and deepen their connections to the essence of the 3 E’s and being human.

During his plenary session at the GoodWork Conference, Esa Saarinen (philosopher and professor at Aalto University in Finland) spoke about “Three Human Phenomena”- Being Present, Being-By-Your-Sideness, and Magical Uplift- concepts that were new to me but resonated deeply.  In listening to Esa speak and reflecting on this conversation, I started thinking about how these concepts can and should be brought into my classroom and how they fit into our conversation about GoodWork.

As Howard Gardner once relayed to me, it’s not about the students memorizing definitions but really being able to model GoodWork and recognize it in the behavior of others. My question is: how can these “three human phenomena” be leveraged and woven into the discussion about GoodWork to assist students in synthesizing their understandings of its concepts and help them to better understand their social world and their responsibilities to our community?

When I returned to my classroom, I reflected on this question and started with myself. How might I be a better teacher as a result of what I’d learned?  I have been working with the elementary toolkit for 2 years now and we keep the discussion of ethics, excellence, and engagement ongoing throughout the school year-what these principles look like, sound like, feel like. A teacher’s role is being present in the classroom – constantly assisting and supporting students, and being engaged in the profession and the daily give and take within the classroom. A teacher’s role is also to support her students, be by their side, and guide them through learning –  living the principles of excellence. Finally, I believe a teacher’s role is to develop an uplifting classroom community: fostering confidence, optimism, and trust in order to assist students in achieving their goals.   I view creating this positive space in the classroom as part of my ethical responsibility to my students.

So on a bright spring day at our Morning Meeting, I started a conversation with my students, first sharing the thinking and reflecting that I was having personally about being human and the 3 E’s.  I shared with them my ideas and personal reflections. After explaining the Three Human Phenomena, we engaged in a discussion. First, I asked my students to think about what they know about human beings. They responded with answers like, “all humans are good at different things,” “humans have 2 eyes, 2 legs, 2 arms, etc.,” “some humans are kind,” and “some humans are shy.” Then I asked them how their responses are connected to the 3 Es, while I guided the conversation by asking about the Three Human Phenomena.  My initial assessment from this first discussion is that my students were making the connections between the two ideas. They were able to see a link between engagement and being present by commenting on how “if you are present in the classroom, it means you’re listening and learning.”  The students also participated in a conversation surrounding “human kindness”, Magical Uplift, and ethics. These 6, 7 and 8 year olds were able to point out the importance of creating a positive space by being kind, making smart choices, and helping others.

After this conversation about the Three Human Phenomena, the feel of the classroom seemed to change, however slightly. The students seemed ready to synthesize these ideas and implement their understandings of the 3 Es through thinking about uplifting their peers, being present in the classroom, and working together seamlessly.  I look forward to watching how this understanding evolves in the weeks and months ahead.

Critical Literacy and Good Work in Scotland

by Kelly Stone

In Scotland, our new Curriculum for Excellence is intended to enable all young people to become successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens, and effective contributors to society. Initial guidelines for Literacy and English appeared in 2008, claiming that “the important skills of critical literacy” were being foregrounded in the new curriculum.  Although critical literacy is a contested term, and definitions vary, I understand the two main elements of critical literacy to be deconstruction and reconstruction. David Wray (2006) makes this point succinctly, stating that “critical literacy is about transforming taken-for-granted social and language practices or assumptions for the good of as many people as possible.” I wholeheartedly believe in the importance of critical literacy, which creates exciting possibilities for discussing what it means to be a responsible citizen of the world, in both online and offline communities. Yet our problem in Scotland is this: as the government has issued more information to teachers, the “critical” element of critical literacy has been shifted to one side, and we now have “information and critical literacy” appearing. Issues of social justice are missing from the “official” constructions (for example, click here). But how can we have responsible citizens, participating in online and offline communities, who are not taught to think ethically and critically about the messages they encounter and to act to change what they think is unfair or unjust?

I don’t mean to suggest that critical literacy for social justice isn’t happening in Scotland. Many educators here are committed to these issues, and I was fortunate to meet some of them as part of my doctoral research. I have spent much of my time these past few years thinking about critical literacy, wondering why it has been deflated, or sidelined, in Scotland. One theory I have is that people might be afraid of the implications of a critical education which encourages and promotes challenge, critique, and action for transformation. Maybe it is lack of understanding about what “critical” really means in educational terms. I have wondered if we might be better talking about “literacy for responsible citizenship?” Is there more clarity in using that term? Is it less daunting, less intimidating? Other educational systems do not seem to have trouble using and understanding critical literacy, and changing terminology would bring Scotland out of alignment with them.

As Paulo Freire explained it, critical pedagogies enable “reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it.” I am hopeful that the use of The GoodWork Toolkit here will create spaces for reflection, discussion and action. Many teachers in the United Kingdom believe that there is an urgent and widespread need for the development of digital fluency or critical literacy skills that will enable children to evaluate the information they encounter online. They have also identified the need for support in understanding how to teach critical digital skills (Bartlett and Miller, 2011). As part of my doctoral research, I interviewed teachers and librarians who similarly identified a lack of resources to help them understand how to teach critical skills.  Participants spoke of the difficulties faced by children with handling the volume of information they find online and of the need for them to know how to help children deal with it, in order to prevent them from being manipulated or taken advantage of. The fact that they identified a dearth of resources to help them teach critical, evaluative skills, particularly as they relate to digital practices, highlights the need for such resources to be disseminated more widely. This is why materials such as The GoodWork Toolkit have such potential and value for educators. I have recommended its use to practitioners (in the online safety materials or here). Further, as part of a talk I gave at a recent conference workshop on the importance of critical skills in preparing children to use the internet safely, I  informed conference delegates about GoodWork principles, and how to find the toolkit.  At that workshop, while I was speaking with a group of multi-agency professionals about how we can prepare children and young people to become responsible digital citizens, it was clear that there is a real appetite to know more about how we can help foster ethical and critical thinking skills.  I look forward to using the Toolkit to open up discussions about ethics, rights, and responsibilities, and reporting back on these experiences.  It is, I believe, one key way to do good work as teachers, and to find how we can guide and support children in doing good work when they participate in communities, online and offline.

Bartlett, J. and Miller, C. (2011) Truth, Lies and the Internet: A report into young people’s digital fluency. London: Demos.

Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury.

Wray, D. (2006) Developing critical literacy: a priority for the 21st century [online].