Future Directions – clear signposts but missing evidence? Group 2 FDI Presentation

How does it all add up?

‘Social presence’- challenges to TEL

…move away from seeing learning largely as an individual cognitive process…

Do learners want to move to if a high percentage of learners were to dislike group work?

Where is the evidence to support this approach?

A contrast between the work of McConnell and the research of others, so what is the answer?

And how do we research this?

Research into SOCIAL CAPITAL may help to understand what is going on

(Daniel, Schwier & McCalla, 2003) but this needs to be applied to virtual

communities. So what is social capital?

‘Social capital’- challenges to TEL

…an imprecise social construct…

…emerged from a rather murky swamp…

Kelland & Kanuka (2007) discuss the polarized perspectives and lack of consensus on the use of technology in differing contexts.

So this provides a challenge in the social capital, hierarchical structure of the design team even before the finished product has got to the students (Jameson et al. 2006)

Production of knowledge in an online learning community

Theoretical framework:Social constructivism - people gain knowledge and make sense of experiences through communication (Vygotsky, 1978)

Characteristics of online learning communities are: “Engaging in collaborative learning and the resultant reflective practice involved in transformative learning differentiate the online learning community and lend it its power in the learning process.” (Palloff & Pratt, 2007)

The most commonly used Model to analyse knowledge creation through interaction offered by Gunawardena et al. (1997) includes five phases:

Interaction Analysis Model (Gunawardena et al., 1997)

Phase I Sharing and comparing of information

Phase II The discovery and exploration of dissonance or inconsistency among ideas, concepts or statements

Phase III Negotiation of meaning/co-construction of knowledge

Phase IV Testing and modification of proposed synthesis or co-construction

Phase V Agreement statement(s)/applications of newlyconstructed meaning

Connectors, learning ties & borders Connectors: who are they? What motivates them to cross borders? And what is their influence on social

presence, social capital, and knowledge creation?

“Connectedness is the extent to which people form and maintain close acquaintances with others from

different groups within a larger social network” (Kotowski and dos Santos 2010).

Networked learning leads to an array of benefits and new opportunities for learners to cross borders

and connect with other learners, whether they are novices or experts. However, there seems to be a

gap in educational research on:

1. how connectors influence a learning network

2. what motivates connectors to cross borders (i.e. connect to

participants within other communities, networks)

3. how connectors bridging borders go beyond the internet, and

4. how connections and connectors relate to learning outcomes

or knowledge creation

Strong and weak ties

Research suggests that networked learners rely on weak ties with competent people they can trust (Schreur

et al. 2013). How important are strong and weak ties when connecting?

● ‘Strong ties’ exist between people in a network who have close, regular, and repeated contact, and

often have a powerful influence on the individuals involved

Connectors, learning ties & borders

The notion of ‘weak ties’ was developed by Granovetter (1973), who identified that they had an important role in enabling information to pass across a network

● ‘Weak ties’ exist between people who may interact less, or may be located at a greater distance (physical and/or virtual) in a network, and with whom we interact less often. But weak ties have an important role in distributing new knowledge. (Carvalho & Goodyear, 2014)

Connectors, learning ties & borders

How can we identify, classify, and analyse connectors’ roles in a learning network?

How can we measure the efficacy of connectors as stakeholders of learning outcomes?

Further development of analytical frameworks is needed

Can we / what can we learn from “web analytics”?

Issues such as student knowledge level and context play

important roles in the analysis of educational data,

something web analytics can not provide (Petropoulou et

al. 2010)

Can we / what can we learn from Social Network Analysis and models like the Stakeholder Salience Model (SSM) to help educators identify “potential stakeholders” from social media (Mitchell et al., 1997; Sedereviciute & Valentin 2011)?

Ideas for future research

Ideas for future research

● If instructors need to understand their role both in terms of fostering sense of community and also in

modeling the social behavior that is expected of online students to motivate and engage them (Anderson,

Rourke, Archer, & Garrison, 2001)...

...then what are the roles and responsibilities of participants in a learning community? To what extent / in

what ways does participants’ understanding of the role and responsibilities influence participation?

Creating & sustaining a learning community

● If collaborative assignments and sharing activities can support the development of a sense of belonging (Barab, Thomas, & Merrill, 1999), accommodate diversity and encourage the emergence of multiple perspectives (Wilson, Ludwidg-Hardman, Thornam, & Dunlap, 2004)...

...then what are the design principles for effective collaborative assignments and sharing activities? How do you design for collaboration?

Ideas for future research

● If there are three levels of community in online courses - group, class and beyond class (Liu et al. 2007)...

...then what is the role of community in networked learning? Note the distinction between between a social

network and a community (Wenger et al. 2011):

"The network aspect refers to the set of relationships, personal interactions, and connections among

participants who have personal reasons to connect. It is viewed as a set of nodes and links with

affordances for learning, such as information flows, helpful linkages, joint problem solving, and

knowledge creation.

Creating & sustaining a learning community

The community aspect refers to the development of a shared identity around a topic or set of challenges. It represents a collective intention - however tacit and distributed - to steward a domain of knowledge and to sustain learning about it." (p. 9).

Ideas for future research

● If it is unlikely that a sense of community will develop in an online group if participants do not want it (Liu

et al. 2007)...

...then how can an online tutor determine whether it is worth investing time and effort in community-

building activities?

Creating & sustaining a learning community

● If you are intending to create and sustain a learning community…

...then what are the mechanisms by which new members are attracted and recruited? Who will be responsible for this? And how often will new members need to be identified and added?

● If problems with technology (such as poor connection / functionality / reliability) can inhibit the

development of sense of community in online groups (Hill, 2001; Kearsley, 2000; Lock, 2002)...

...then what principles might inform the design of online environments / activities which accommodate and minimise these problems?

Ideas for future research

● McConnell (2006) notes that sometimes one in five do not have a positive experience of collaborative

online learning, suggesting that collaborative online learning is not a catch all. Is this a failing of

collaborative online learning or is there something missing in the behaviour of the one in five?

● Jones and Healing (2010) highlight the dangers of assuming that technological change leads to changes in

attitudes and behaviours. Research into the extent to which technological change really influences

behaviour will help address the apparent conundrum that the net generation may not be able for online

learning.

Human factors influencing online behaviour

● The roles that students adopt online can influence their participation (Kellend and Kanuka, 2007),

suggesting the need for further research into online personas and their influence on participation

● The extent to which culture is a factor in determining online behaviour (Kellend and Kanuka, 2007) and

participation is obviously a source of future research.

● With a nod to Anderson (2008), future research on online behaviour will likely continue to focus on

practice rather than theory. Although sufficient practice research is enabling the community to start

laying down some theory.

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, R. and Archer, W. (2001). Assessing Teaching Presence in a Computer Conferencing Context.

Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 5(2).

Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The Theory and Practice of Online Learning. AU

Press. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebook/02_Anderson_2008-

Theory_and_Practice_of_Online_Learning.pdf

Barab, S. A., Thomas, M. K., & Merill, H. (1999). Online learning: From information dissemination to building a shared sense of

community. Unpublished Manuscript. Indiana University Bloomington.

Carvalho, L. and Goodyear, P. (2014). The Architecture of Productive Learning Networks. Routledge, New York.

Daniel, B., Schwier, R., & McCalla, G. (2003). Social capital in virtual learning communities and distributed communities of practice.

Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. 29(3), 113-139.

References

Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology. 78(6), pp.1360-1380.

Gunawardena, C., Lowe, C., and Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a Global Online Debate and the Development of an In teraction Analysis Model for Examining Social Construction of Knowledge in Computer Conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research. Vol. 17, Number 4.

Hill, J. R. (2001). Building community in web-based learning environments: Strategies and techniques. Retrieved October 11th,

2014, from http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw01/papers/refereed/hill/paper.html

Jameson, J., Ferrell, G., Kelly, J., Walker, S. and Ryan, M. (2006). Building trust and shared knowledge in communities of e-learning

practice: Collaborative leadership in the JISC Elisa and Camel lifelong learning projects. British Journal of Educational Technology.

37 (6), pp. 949–967.

Jones, C., & Healing, G. (2010). Net Generation Students: Agency and Choice and the New Technologies. Journal of Computer

Assisted Learning, 26(5), 344–356. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00370.x

Kearsley, G. (2000). Online education: Learning and teaching in cyberspace. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Kelland, J. and Kanuka, H. (2007). “We just disagree:” Using deliberative inquiry to seek consensus about the effects of e-learning

on higher education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. Volume 33(3).

References

Kotowski, M. & dos Santos, G. (2010). The role of the connector in bridging borders through virtual communities. Journal of Borderlands Studies. 25(3-4), pp.150-158.

Liu, X., Magjuka, R.J., Bonk, C.J., & Seung-hee, L. (2007). Does Sense of Community Matter? An Examination of Participants’ Perceptions of Building Learning Communities in Online Courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education. 8(1) pp.9-24.

Lock, J. V. (2002). Laying the groundwork for the development of learning communities within online courses. Quarterly Review of

Distance Education. 3(4), pp.395-408.

McConnell, D.. (2006). E-Learning Groups And Communities. Open University Press. Retrieved 12 October 2014, from

<http://www.myilibrary.com?ID=95464>

Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. and Wood, D.J. (1997). Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle

of Who and What Really Counts. The Academy of Management Review. 22(4), pp. 853-886.

Palloff, R. and Pratt, K. (2007). Building Online Learning Communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom. San Francisco,

Wiley.

References

Schreurs, B., Teplovs, C., Ferguson, R., De Laat, M. and Buckingham Shum, S. (2013). Visualizing social learning ties by type and topic: rationale and concept demonstrator. In: Third Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2013), 8-12 April 2013, Leuven, Belgium, ACM, pp.33–37.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Harvard University Press.

Wenger, E., Trayner, B., & de Laat, M. (2011). Promoting and assessing value creation in communities and networks: a conceptual framework. Ruud de Moor Centrum, The Netherlands.

Wilson, B.G., Ludwig-Hardman, S., Thornam, C., & Dunlap, J.C. (2004). Bounded community: Designing and facilitating learning

communities in formal courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 5(3).

References