#11 posting

Dubin (1978) remarked that theory builders observe a segment of the world around them and search for order in the realm of experience. Due to the complexity, the observation can be bewildering. They presented various kinds of perspectives, each of which attempts to explain an important aspects of the complexity.

Overvewing through various distance learning theorists’ endeavors, I combined them into a chart which includes the theories or models of Urie Bronfenbrenner (psychologist, Ecological Systems Theory), Borje Holmberg, Charles Wedemeyer, Michael G. Moore, Desmond Keegan, Otto Peters, Randy Garrison, and John Anderson (see the above diagram).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The following is an old post appearing in another site. I put them together in one place.

This is an interesting article from the CI8395 reading list. Here are my notes:

Summary:

Aviv et al’s (2003) “Network analysis of knowledge construction in asynchronous learning networks (ALNs)” attempts to make the process of collaboration more transparent. The authors used a transcript of conference messages to assess individual roles and collaborative contribution. There were 3 aspects in assessing the ALNs:

1.The design, the quality of the resulting knowledge construction process and cohesion, role and power network structures. The design is evaluated according to the Social Interdependence Theory of Cooperative Learning;
2.The quality of the knowledge construction process is evaluated through Content Analysis;

3.The network structures are analyzed using Social Network Analysis.

Research design, samples and data:

The analysis in this research is based on recorded data from two ALNs that were part of the Open University of Israel course, Business Ethics. The first ALN (18 participants) ran during the fall 2000 semester. The other ALN (19 participants) ran during the spring 2002 semester. The designs of the ALNs were different. Neither of the ALNs fulfills all of the specifications of Social Interdependence Theory of Cooperative Learning, but the fall 2000 ALN was more structured than the spring 2002 ALN. They referred to these ALNs as the structured ALN and the non-structured ALN, respectively.

The structured ALN was a three-month long, formal online seminar; in signing up for it, students committed themselves to active participation and other requirements. A reward mechanism for fulfilling the requirements (including active participation) was employed. 18 students opted to participate in this ALN.The non-structured ALN was a three-month long online conference, open to all 300 students in the course, with no need to register or commit themselves in advance. No specific cooperative goal was defined for this ALN. Students and the tutor could raise a variety of issues related to the course topic(which were the same as in the fall 2000 course). No structure was designed and no schedule was imposed (though the deadlines for submitting assignments were reflected in the ALN), and no reward mechanism was implemented. 19 students opted to use this ALN.

The interesting item in the research was the Social Network Analysis using Cyram NetMiner —a software tool for exploratory network data analysis and visualization.

Results:
They found that in the structured ALN, the knowledge construction process reached a very high phase of critical thinking and developed cohesive cliques. The students took on bridging and triggering roles, while the tutor had relatively little power. In the non-structured ALN, the knowledge construction process reached a low phase of cognitive activity; few cliques were constructed; most of the students took on the passive role of teacher-followers; and the tutor was at the center of activity.In the discussion, the authors posed several suggesting for further studies which included position analysis, network dynamics, large group information overload, effective construction of network, stochastic modeling of ALNs, and stability of results.

Reflection:
1. This is an empirical research based on students in the course of Business Ethics at the Open University of Israel course. Though the research is comparison by nature (comparing the structured and non-structured ALNs), the methods and tools are sophisticated, in particular, the interesting Cyram NetMiner software to explore the network pathways and can be visualized see the above diagrams.

2. From Cryam NetMiner’s analysis, one can see the patterns of network dynamics among the triggers, celebrities, loners, passive actors and active actors, as well as the roles and functions of the facilitators between the structured and non-structured groups.

3. I can read that the less structured group where facilitator (P 18) has to take more responsibility (teacher-centered) to push the class going. Learners are passively waiting to be led. On the other hand, the facilitator (P1) in the structured group almost can be invisible (or less interacts with the group). At this point, perhaps, some educational stakeholders might question what the true responsibilities- roles and functions of an online facilitator are, according to the above diagrams in the structured group, if a course is well designed by a collaborative team of contents, design, media experts? Where are the show cases or the credits of pedagogies if they are part of the team efforts? Can the facilitator be spared?- James Morrison's - University will be dead, but what about pedagogies if physical universities are gone?

4. The research was conducted in Israel. I am wondering if the students are international by nature, or mainly they were from Israel, since it was an open university. Cultural differences, gender, race/ethnicity, class, personality, learning styles...etc. could play a role in group dynamics. For example, some ethnic groups/gender, tend not to be the triggers or “bridgers” which might not indicate that they were passive learners. So the characteristics of learner need to be taken into account.

5. Some researchers (in Israel?) suggested embedding the Cryam NetMiner tool into ALN support environment to enable the facilitator to monitor group dynamics closely. Cautiously, they did warn the possible contradictories if embedded, from the research perspective. From my point of view, I can also look at it from the personnel and administrative perspectives. Cryam NetMiner not just can be used to monitor learners’ activities; it also can reveal facilitator’s endeavors in an online environment. So, before what the ideal or necessary minimum and maximum of engagement of an online facilitator to partake in the teaching and learning environment, the embedding the Cryam NetMiner (if it happens) can be controversial.