Diane-Michel.com

Web 2.0 Learning Platform: Harnessing Collective Intelligence. Please enjoy this thoughtful paper on how technology is changing the way we learn and teach. Web 2.0 Technologies and Education

In short, in today’s world everyone is both a teacher and a learner combined. We all know the old adage of the teacher being the ultimate source of knowledge as being simply not true anymore. Social constructivism emphasizes that learning takes place as we interact with one another and the world. Specificially we learn within authentic situated context. Simply put we learn when we can see the real purpose and understand how the new knowledge can benefit us. Learning within a community of practice or a collective intelligence environment provides us with something that is immediately useful, therefore infinitely more memorable.

Web 2.0 learning involves a “decentralization of authority” according to the authors of the paper. It also provides an architecture of participation, specifically exposing metadata to allow purposeful searches, and useful community produced “stubs” for saving data on comments and interactions.

References:

Rogers, P., Liddle, S., Chan, P, Doxey, A., Isom, B. (2007). Web 2.0 learning platform: Harnessing collective intelligence. Retrieved January 25, 2008, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_
storage_01/0000019b/80/34/ec/cb.pdf

The following represents reviews I conducted articles relating to the importance of “sense of community” to help alleviate isolation and frustration for online learners.

Article 1
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P.A., Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 335-353.

Problem Presented in Article
Sharing experiences, and collaboration are doorways to richer dialogue, and deeper levels of learning. Two pitfalls exist that hamper such levels of communication. Just because social interaction is technically feasible within an OLE doesn’t necessarily mean learners will. Interaction must be intentionally designed within the course. The second pitfall is the fact instructors must focus primarily on meeting learning objectives and covering content rather than fostering socio-emotional relationships. Just completing assignments online is a narrow type of interaction that isn’t at the proper level necessary for true group dynamics to occur. Instructors should think of how to produce interactions that encourage group cohesion, a sense of belonging and positive interdependence. By being proactive in monitoring and weaving discussions and interactions, instructors can help to create a sense of social presence and true community.

Summary
Many studies have shown that social interaction is the key for effective group learning. Social interaction is important for: feelings of affiliation, forming impressions of others, building social relationships, and developing a community of learning. Collaboration results in students learning to think more critically and on a deeper level. Learning through collaboration means knowledge will be more apt to be remembered for a longer period of time (Garrison, 1993).   Collaboration amplifies the development of social and communication skills particularly when participants are working with loosely defined, authentic situated learning environments. They develop social and communication skills in order to solve their challenges, build relationships and work in ways that enhances group cohesion.   The authors cite work by Hiltz (1998), who said that, “the social process of developing shared understanding through interaction is the €˜natural’ way for people to learn”.

Social interaction influences whether or not collaborative learning is effective.   Just because a person is placed within a group, doesn’t guarantee they will collaborate with others.   The author contends that many instructors just naturally assume interaction will occur.   Somewhat akin to thinking, “We built the virtual coffee house.   So interact already!”

The authors cite work by Rourke (2000) in which he summarized students must feel part of a group in order to truly collaborate.   Supported by that sense of belonging, students feel more open to taking the necessary risks needed for true collaboration.   Students who feel comfortable with one another, are more likely to present tentative ideas, ask for help, critique others, and accept other’s criticisms without feeling threatened.   Once students feel connected to one another they are able to engage in active collaboration and see that working together is valuable.   The authors note that studies by Wegreg (1998) showed that a sense of community allows for people to feel like their concerns or opinions will be treated with empathy and respect.   Therefore, they need not be anxious or defensive in their communications.   In order to build community people should be allowed to chat, discuss, argue, and confide.   In doing so they will find others with common interests €“ and will learn from them.   Opportunities should be allowed for impromptu encounters, social, and off-task communication

Reactions
This is an interesting and useful position.   Social interaction does indeed create stronger collaboration.   One feels a sense of affiliation, as group members are “real people” who are identified with, cared about and supported.   By allowing students to create a social presence, content learning moves to a new level through more lively discussions and sustained interest.  

It is not clear how individuals on tight schedules, and no-nonsense attitudes to getting work done, could ever be truly “super sociable” in an online learning environment.   Nor would a school probably enjoy their class being turned into a sort of friendship love-fest.   But providing opportunities for students to be seen as real social beings and not just a login name is a good step forward.   Understanding where a person is coming from, their interests, and motivations can be helpful.   It would be particularly useful in developing stronger alliances, richer collaborative experiences and longer more sustained relationships for networking purposes.

References for Future Research

Gilbert L. & Moore, D.R. (1998). Building interactivity into web courses: tools for social and instructional interaction. Educational Technology 38, 29 €“35.

Gunawardena , C.N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 1, 147 €“166.

Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1999). Learning together and alone: cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Allyn & Bacon: Boston.

Rourke, L. (2000). Operationalizing social interaction in computer conferencing. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual conference of the Canadian Association for Distance Education. Quebec City.

Rourke, L., Anderson, T, Archer, W., Garrison, D.R., (1999), Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based, computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14,   51 €“70.

Rovai , A.P. (2001). Classroom community at a distance: a comparative analysis of two ALN-based university programs. Internet and Higher Education, 4, 105 €“118.

A phenomenological investigation of a sense of community within an adult online learning environment.

Abstract:
Learning is a process that occurs within a social context. We learn from one another through the sharing of experiences, collaboration, negotiation and articulation of ideas. This study’s intent is to understand the importance of a sense of community for online learning environments. This study will provide insight into students’ perceptions of what a sense of community is, and the benefits they receive as a result. The study will also explore if students and teachers perceive the benefits achieved from developing a strong sense of community outweigh the extra work required to build and maintain social presence, and promote connectedness within a learning group.

Introduction: Research Purpose
The purpose of this study will be to understand if a sense of community within an adult online learning environment positively influences student learning outcomes, and their perception of the quality of their educational experience. The study will explore whether or not a sense of community promotes feelings of group support, and facilitates the social construction of knowledge. This is an important question because it has been noted in literature and numerous studies, (McInnerney & Roberts, 2004; Rovai, 2002; Rovai & Wighting, 2005) that distance learning students often feel isolated, which may lead to frustration if they feel unsupported in their efforts to learn. As a result of their isolation they may choose to quit their studies. Universities suffer the consequences as a result with higher student attrition rates. However, considerable time and effort must be expended in order to successfully produce social presence and sense of community within an OLE. This subject matter seems to have not yet been fully discussed in available research. Is the increased effort that must be put forth by both students and teachers in order to achieve a sense of community deemed worthwhile? Or the time and effort hurts students by serving as a distraction? Reflective statements from students on their individual experiences of building and promoting a strong sense of community should be explored in detail in a variety of courses. Under what circumstances is it appropriate and necessary to take the time to build and nurture a strong sense of community? The study is attempting to understand if busy adult students may feel distracted by the continual demands for social interaction and social construction of knowledge by the learning group.

The study will be a qualitative phenomenological study of 300 volunteer students who are enrolled in graduate level online education courses. The research will study students for a period of two years. The research will be particularly focused on understanding the online learning students’ direct reflective statements throughout their studies about their interactions and experiences within their courses. The study will follow students starting at the very beginning of their studies as they start their most fundamental classes and continue to monitor their reflective statements and feelings as they progress to increasingly more difficult courses that require increasing amounts of group collaboration. Their reflective statements about their sense of community, the benefits of having a learning community, and other pertinent information will be gathered from surveys, online chat, individual interviews, and discussion logs. The statements will be collected and categorized within the main thematic areas. Those include sense of community, social presence and perceived workload involved with developing and
maintaining social presence. As a result of these explorations, discoveries will be summarized that will show if building a strong sense of community within every online learning environment is indeed a worthwhile and essential endeavor, or should be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Problem Statement
Weisman (2003) reports that learning online exclusively can be an isolating experience for students. Students may feel frustrated working alone without proper access to resources, or social interaction from instructors or fellow students. He also states the quality of communication or lack thereof, in the learning environment can have a large impact on the learner’s motivation. Vonderwell’s (2003) studies of twenty-two online students revealed that some students felt interactions were less personal, and they missed “one-on-one” relationships with their instructors. Some students in Vonderwell’s study reported no real social interaction in-group discussions, and that learning teams didn’t give a feeling of cohesiveness. They felt their teams were “just groups of people”. A sense of community has been shown to enhance the quality of the educational experience, (Rovai 2002; 2005). The problem is identifying whether or not building a strong sense of community in all cases for all online environments is a necessary and foregone conclusion that class designers/instructors must make. The study wishes to explore students’ reflective statements about their sense of community, and what benefits they reap from it, in a variety of online classes and learning situations. The study will attempt to discover if at times building and interacting with the learning community becomes a distraction. Adult graduate students may eel that they are simply too busy to truly dedicate themselves fully and passionately to the care and maintenance of a social learning community. They may choose instead to intentionally limit their interactions or become passive observers within online courses. They may also choose not to develop their own social presence, or provide means of mutual support for other members. Some students may actively seek group belongingness while others disengage as a coping measure to simply complete the course quickly and efficiently.

Significance of the Study
Rovai & Wighting (2005) point out that improving students’ sense of community and belonging enhances retention and overall student satisfaction with online studies. Conversely they state a sense of alienation, can reduce the sense of community, dampen student achievement and may increase drop out rates.

Rovai & Wighting (2005) also indicate poor experiences within the classroom environment can lead to negative feelings about the school in general which would again point to higher drop out rates. They contend when learners perceive a sense of community their learning process is made easier and more comfortable. However a review of literature reveals building a sense of community takes considerable effort. Rovai (2002) states that a sense of community involves individuals feeling a sense of mutual responsibility, and “commitment to shared goals”. Conrad’s research (2005) shows that instructors must develop a social presence and be seen as a “real person”, and in addition provide a sense of immediacy, and constantly monitor and guide their online students. Most available literature does not take into account the real time and effort it takes to maintain a true thriving learning community. Nor does current literature consider what instances is the actual building of community an extravagance in terms of time, money and personal effort.

Research Questions
Do students perceive the quality and depth of their learning experience to always be enhanced by an online learning environment that promotes a strong sense of community, or at times is it considered a distraction? The first aim of the study will be to discover if a sense of community does indeed facilitate feelings of comfort, less isolation and a sense of belonging within a group of distant learners who have never actually met. The second aim is to understand if a sense of community among group members always leads to mutual feelings of support, more fruitful collaboration, and increased mutual social construction of knowledge. In final, the study will determine if students feel the added burden of creating and maintaining a sense of community through social presence is indeed worth their time and effort.

Literature Review
First it is necessary to understand fundamental theories on social learning. Vygotsky, (1981), championed the idea that learning is a process that occurs through social participation and interaction. Human behavior (learning) cannot be isolated as a separate entity but must be defined within its social and historical context. The fundamental ideas of Vygotsky (1981) include that knowledge is built through other’s experiences, ideas and assistance as well as personal experience. Lave & Wenger (1991) contend that situated learning occurs through membership and active participation in what they call ” communities of practice”. Lave & Wenger (1991) also state that reciprocal and active relationships between learners calls for strong social networks within the classroom.

Driscoll (2000) states that in order for learning to occur, (particularly those engaged in constructivist learning processes) one must “provide for social negotiation as an integral part of learning.” She emphasizes that theories of social negotiation and socially constructed knowledge are fundamental in the positions of such noteworthy education and psychology experts as: Piaget, Vygotsky, Bruner, Cunningham, and Honebein,. She also states that constructivist learning must also “support mutual perspectives and the use of multiple modes of representation. ”

McMillan and Chavis (1986) state that a sense of community has essentially four components. Those elements are:
1. Membership – Members feel a sense of belongingness to a group.
2. Influence €“ Each member’s opinion matters to one another and can influence others.
3. Integration & fulfillment – Each member has a “shared faith” that their own needs will be met through the group’s commitment to shared goals. For example, if a member has a question others will offer assistance.
4. Shared emotional commitment €“ Members will share their experiences, and personal history together.
McMillan and Chavis’s ideas on sense of community are widely accepted “because of (their) theoretical base and their qualitative empirical support.”, according to Blanchard (2005).

Fisher, Sonn, and Bishop’s work, (2002) “The psychological sense of community” proposes that people just naturally feel more supported as a positive consequence of sense of community. They feel they can relate more fully to one another as people, “aspire to new goals beyond their previous personal interests”, and have feelings of “social connectedness.” An important aspect of their findings is that individuals who indeed feel lonely or isolated “will invest more energy in seeking a sense of community and support.” A critical conclusion that the study reached is that students who feel such intense isolation “will move (on) to another school or educational delivery medium to satisfy their basic needs”

Rovai & Wighting (2005) who performed quantitative research on feelings of alienation and community, showed an “inverse relationship between alienation and a sense of community.” The quality of the study “Feelings of alienation and community among higher education students in a virtual classroom” is deemed excellent, in that the instrumentation used is considered valid including the Dean Alienation Scale, and the equally reliable standard, the Classroom Community Scale, (Rovai, 2002). In the study there was no differential attrition, and it utilized a convenience sampling of 117 volunteer college students in 6 online graduate courses, with a 93% volunteer rate.

The classroom community scale, Rovai (2002) is deemed valid and credible in that it was “developed, refined, and field-tested” with a volunteer sampling of 375 graduate students enrolled in 28 different online courses. Rovai reports that he used two internal consistency estimates for reliability. “Cronbach’s coefficient α for the full Classroom Community Scale was .93 and the equal-length split-half coefficient was .91, indicating excellent reliability.”

According to Conrad (2005), there is a large amount of literature that proves a sense of community is important for the successful educational outcomes for online learners. She cites the following sources in reaching her conclusion: (Gundawardena & Zittle, 1997; Harasim, Starr, Teles, & Turoff, 1996; Hiltz & Wellman, 1997; Rheingold, 1993). She states, a sense of community feels like home. It’s a safe place where members feel mutual trust and respect. She explains that it provides an ” €¦invitation for intellectual exchange, and a gathering place for like-minded individuals who are sharing a journey that includes similar activities, purposes and goals.”

Rovai’s numerous studies conclusively show how important a sense of community is within an online learning environment. A sense of isolation and lack of community may be one of the many factors in higher drop out rates for distance education courses over traditional classroom courses. Rovai (2002) reached substantial conclusions on a quantitative study entitled “Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning and persistence in learning networks”. The study involved 314 students within 26 graduate courses in an online environment. The volunteer rate was 65.9%, with 314 out of 478 students participating. The study results showed a significant relationship between a student’s sense of community and their “perceived cognitive learning.”

His study “provided evidence that a significant relationship exists between classroom community and perceived cognitive learning.” He also concluded those who have a significant sense of community and “perceive greater cognitive learning” do indeed feel less isolated, feel more satisfied with their coursework, and the results are less attrition for the university. His studies revealed that students could indeed feel connected to a group and feel a sense of belonging in a virtual community. The research showed that students with a stronger feeling of community felt they learned more. A sense of community therefore adds a greater feeling of satisfaction with a course. Conversely the study revealed that a sense of alienation, can reduce the sense of community, dampen student achievement and may increase drop out rates. However, Rovai cautions against firmly suggesting a “causal relationship between sense of community and cognitive learning.” There may indeed be an unknown third variable that may be present that is related to the other two variables that may explain the relationship the results.

From the above mentioned study by Rovai, (2002) he determined that if the learning environment fosters the feeling that the students are indeed a part of a group that is working on a “valuable and worthwhile endeavor” and that they are indeed interconnected with one another, “It may be possible to reduce feelings of alienation and increase sense of community within the context of a virtual classroom.” Some significant reflective statements from the students include: “I think we all came away with a sense of family; it has made responding to each other comfortable.” Anther student’s comments included “I was very apprehensive about this class but the other members have helped me feel good about it €“ especially through the use of discussion boards”.

In a qualitative study of 17 online graduate students who began studying together as a group in May of 2002, Conrad study published in 2005, gathered the participant’s significant statements about community. The study does seem to be valid, but the studied group is rather small. She collected data five times throughout the two years of the program. First she administered a questionnaire, to gather their perceptions about online learning, and a sense of community. After they completed their first course (n=14) she administered a second questionnaire with some of the questions repeated. The third data gathering included a research assistant who interviewed 11 volunteer students for 60 minutes each. The interviews were taped and transcribed. 18 months after the start of the program she again sent out a questionnaire in which participants (n=13) were asked about their sense of community and how it affected their feelings of the course. Her fifth data collection included meeting with 6 students utilizing a focus group interview two years after they began the program. She analyzed the data inductively by reviewing her questionnaire results, and transcripts. From this she organized the data and it’s interrelationships, categorized it and came up with themes. Did the sense of community indeed help them academically in their studies? She states that, the students did indeed indicate they felt more comfortable in discussions and postings. Six of her participants pointed out that they felt there was more open sharing of resources, and five talked of increased collaboration on projects.

In her conclusions, Conrad (2005) also summarized her data and created a “Participants’ Thematic Notions of Community”. Participant’s significant statements included items relating to friendship, relationship, familiarity, collaboration, common purpose, support, technology, group/place/exchange, and group. Students reported they also felt good instructors helped to create a sense of community by being socially present, energetic, responsive to student needs, and being knowledgeable on the subject matter. Producing this type of social presence surely would require significant amounts of an instructor’s time, which is one of the issues this study would like to address.

How can one create a sense of community? According to the findings of Perry and Edwards (2005) in their qualitative study of nursing students, it would seem that it does take considerable effort. They found that exemplary instructors facilitated creating communities of inquiry. Although the study does not give much detail into the methodology as to how the students were selected, nor the number of students in the population, it is felt their findings seem logical. They report that competent online instructors accomplish building a community of inquiry through thoughtful social, cognitive and teaching presence. They challenge their students to high standards by engaging in a variety of affirming behaviors. They show encouragement, and value students as individuals. They craft useful and thoughtful responses that show cognitive presence. They affirm students by recognizing potential, validating learners and treating them with respect.

Shea (2006) performed an extensive study of 2,036 college students who took classes solely in an online environment. The intent of his study was to ascertain what students felt contributed to a sense of community in an online learning environment. His hypothesis was that students’ perception of teaching presence is directly associated with their sense of learning community. The impressive sample involved students from 32 state universities, 470 instructors and 581 courses. The selected target population is credible due to its strong population validity. In all the study gathered 2,314 evaluation questionnaires. The study showed that “directed facilitation” from the instructor, that is an instructor who took an active and social presence, was deemed very important to building the sense of community within the course.

References

Conrad, D. (2005). Building and maintain community in cohort-based online learning.
Journal of Distance Education, (20)1, 1-20.

Driscoll, M.P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Fisher, A.T., Son, C.C., Bishop, B.J. (2002). Psychological sense of community:
research, applications and implications. New York: Kluwer Academic Plenum.

Galef, B.G., Zental, T.R. (1988). Social learning psychological and biological
perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches. Boston: Pearson.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. legitimate peripheral participation,
Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.

McInnerney, J.M., & Roberts, T.S. (2004). Online learning: social interaction and the
creation of a sense of community. Educational Technology & Society, 7(3),
73-81.

McMillan, D.W., & Chavis, D.M. (1986). Sense of community: a definition and theory.
Journal of Community Psychology. (14)1, 6-23.

Perry, B., Edwards, RN. (2005). Exemplary online educators: creating a community of
inquiry, Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 6(2). Retrieved March 25,
2007, from http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde18/articles/article6.htm

Rovai, A.P. (2002). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community.
The Internet and Higher Education. (5)3, 197-211.

Rovai, A.P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International review of
research and in open and distance learning. 3(1).

Rovai, A.P., Jordan, H.M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A
comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 5(2).

Rovai, A.P., Wighting, M.J., (2005). Feelings of alienation and community among higher
education students in a virtual classroom. The Internet and Higher Education, 8,
97-110.

Shea, P. (2006). A study of students’ sense of learning community in online
environments. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1)

Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences
and perspectives of students in an online course: a case study. The Internet and
Higher Education, 6, 77-90.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The development of higher forms of attention in childhood. The
concept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, N.Y.: Sharpe.

Weisman, E. J. (2003). An evaluation of online learning environments (OLE) on the adult
at-risk population. The Journal of Computing in Small Colleges, 18, 142-154.

The Role of Instructional Design
Instructional design is a synergy of disciplines that create a systematic process for the development of instruction. This process combines best practices in instruction with proven learning theories and often uses technology as its delivery mechanism. Instructional design takes strategies and theories out of the research world and utilizes them in direct and practical ways.

Instructional design focuses its primary attention on the learner. This is distinctly different from traditional classroom teaching and learning of the past, which tended to concentrate on covering content alone. Objectives are built based on the level of the intended target audience. Strategies are designed around the students and what is considered most appropriate for them.

Fundamental Elements of ID
Within a comprehensive and effective instructional design plan, there is a core of elements that should always be found. The following are those elements:

1. Designing for the Learner
For effective teaching, one must specifically design the instruction for the target audience. The instructional designer seeks to understand their students’ individual differences and current level of understanding. They must also understand in what context should the learning take place. Instruction is tailored in such a way that the students will be able to understand the new material and be able to link it with their existing cognitive structures.

2. Instructional Objectives
A list of clear and definable objectives is written. Objectives describe what a student must be able to do or demonstrate in order to show that learning has been accomplished. In order to be effective, objectives must not be general statements but be as exact and specific as possible.

3. Instructional Strategies
An instructional designer selects a set of strategies that will be utilized to teach the subject. The goal is to select those that will be best for the specific learners in order to meet the course objectives.

4. Evaluation Instruments
Precise ways to evaluate the student’s progress are developed. These evaluative tools measure if the teaching objectives have been met and to what degree the student has mastered the material.

5. Instructional Problems and Goals
The designer defines the knowledge gaps to be solved and specifies learning goals.

6. Subject Content
The course content is written and defined specifically listing those components of instruction that will be necessary to meet the learning goals.

7. Create Units and Sequence Content
The designer must chunk the course material into logical, sequential groups. This structure provides a progression for learning in discrete units that help to aid understanding without overwhelming the student.

8. Instructional Message and Development of Instruction
The instructional message is the actual design of the instructional material. It is the physical teaching product.

9. Resources
A listing is made of the types of resources that will be used to help supplement the instruction. Varied resources are considered optimal to maintain attention and interest.

Premises Underlying the Instructional Design Process
Premise 1
Utilize systematic procedures and specificity in creating details for the plan.
One must be precise and systematic in creating the design. The instructional designer gathers the essential nine elements (discussed above) and defines their strategies in an organized fashion with exacting detail.

Premise 2
The ID process starts not at the curriculum development level, but rather at the course development level.

Premise 3
The ID plan is produced as a planning guide for the instructional designer and team, and is usually not seen by the learners.

Premise 4
The plan should make it a priority that the students experience levels of satisfactory achievement.

Premise 5
The content must be accurate in order for the instruction to be successful.

Premise 6
The target audience is considered vitally important and the design plan works towards their individual improvement. The focus is on the learner more so than specific content.

Premise 7
There is no single right path for designing instruction.

Applying the Process to Academic and Training Programs
Instructional design for business tends to have precise requirements. The objective of instruction is to create a return on investment through improvement in job related performance.

Instructional design for the academic world utilizes the same processes but considers different priorities. It’s objective is to create tailored instruction for the individual. This provides stronger engagement of students and keeps their attention and motivation high. The instruction tends to be centered on project-based activities, which focus on active participation in the learning process through authentic environments. Students are encouraged to integrate and demonstrate learning from multiple subjects in order to complete their projects.

References

Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J.E. (2004), Designing Effective Instruction. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Think New Ideas: A Collaborative Research Community

ThinkNewIdeas.com is a community of forward thinking individuals interested in learning how to facilitate global collaboration. The group will explore and share how Web 2.0 technologies can be successfully used to create and enhance collaborative intelligence.

Mission
We plan to create efficient systems that facilitate knowledge sharing. Our ultimate goal is to enable faster discoveries within mankind’s critical areas of concern. Those areas including medical research, and other fundamental domains. It is our hope by creating more useful knowledge sharing systems, key research data and patterns can be more quickly identified and put to good use.

Research Focus

Our first research phase will focus on the most respected and influential thinkers within the fields of collective intelligence and the semantic Web. We will carefully select and review the highest levels of research possible. Our mission is to discover and distill the essential essence of ideas being worked on at present. We will then provide that information in a clear and highly usable state, and identify those elements of a successful collaborative system. Once the information is distilled we will begin a system prototype for our knowledge sharing environment.

About ThinkNewIdeas.com

Think New Ideas will be powered entirely by Web 2.0 technologies. In order to provide a comfortable and efficient working environment, we will always opt for those applications that are mainstream, and familiar to the majority of users.

Wikipedia: A case study in global collective intelligence

In order to understand collective intelligence more clearly, we need to study one of the strongest and prime examples of collective knowledge building on the Web.That is Wikipedia.Despite earlier questions regarding it’s usability, and overall accuracy, it is indeed an amazing accomplishment. The knowledge base of Wikipedia is growing exponentially.Itis a rich and exciting case study on anenormous scale.Within it lies a trove of information regarding howcollective intelligence is formed and valued by the community that creates it.

According to Wilkinson & Huberman, (2007):

“The online encyclopedia Wikipedia is an impressive example of a global collective intelligence at work. Since its inception in January 2001, Wikipedia has grown to encompass 6.40 million articles (by April 2007) in 250 languages generated from 236 million edits by 5.77 million contributors.

Both Bernardo A. Huberman, and Dennis Wilkinson are with HP and the reknown PARC (Palo Alto Research Center). They havereported substantial findings regarding Wikipedia in theApril 2007 issue of First Monday.

The content of Wikipedia is deemed useful and relevant by the user community at large is confirmed by its current position as11th most visited site on the Internet, serving an average of 16,536 requests per second.

The authors studied a correlation between the number of edits and article quality within 1,211 featured articles. Theresearchers concluded:

“We have shown that although Wikipedia is a complex system in which of millions of diverse editors collaborate in an unscheduled and virtually uncontrolled fashion, editing follows a very simple overall pattern. This pattern implies that a small number of articles, corresponding to topics of high relevance or visibility, accrete a disproportionately large number of edits. And, while large collaborations have been shown to fail in many contexts, Wikipedia article quality continues to increase, on average, as the number of collaborators and the number of edits increases. Thus, topics of high interest or relevance are naturally brought to the forefront of visibility and quality.”

…………………………………………………………………….
References

Wilkinson, D. & Huberman, B.A. (April 2007). Assessing the value of cooperation in Wikipedia. Retrieved January 8, 2007, from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_4/wilkinson/#w1

Recently I have been researching my own collective intelligencesuite of applications.I have been systematically trying and experimenting numerous solutions. Here I will share with you some of my preliminary conclusions for corporate knowledge sharing applications:

WikiMedia
This is open source software, and is the same thing Wikipedia is built on.Anyone can implement it on an server, their own desktop, or even on a portable memory stick. As reported previously it is being used by manyFortune 500companies. Best of all, it’s free. However it does have some serious drawbacks which must be revealed.

WikiMedia Usability Problems
The look and feel of a WikiMedia product, is familiar to anyone who has used Wikipedia.The familiar interfacemakes for a happy beginning.But when one is face with the daunting task of posting, the comfort level quickly changes. For example,how do you post a page? This simple function is not made clear, and can be confounding to new users. The only way to post a page is to:

1.Search on a topic.
2.Discover the page doesn’t exist
3. Click on a linkonthe “not found” page.
4. Then begin writing.

WikiMedia Formatting Difficulties
Formatting anything other than straight text is difficult.WikiMedia doesn’t use pure HTML formatting, nor does it have a WYSIWYG editor.Individuals used to working within thesimplisticlyrefinedworld of blogs, may find thefunctionality, or lack thereof frustrating. Here is just a small taste of Wikipedia’s help section onformatting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page

From a user’s viewpoint, (which really is the only thing that matters) this is not very good. WikiMedia’s help section is extremely difficult to follow, and too verbose. The first page is filled with promise.However upon digging deeper the writing is confused, and unfocused.

In evaluating collective intelligence systems, remember, the cornerstones of usability according to Nielsen(2003) are systems that are:

a. intuitive
b. easy to learn and remember
c. satisfying
d. efficient to work with
e. low error rate, and easy to recover if you do make a mistake.

I would like torecommend that the WikiMedia edit functions be made more user friendly and not written in such a way to turn off potential valuable contributors.

References:

Nielsen, J. (2003). Usability 101: definition and fundamentals. RetrievedJanuary 6, 2008, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030825.html

Wikipedia.org (2007) Help. Retrieved January 6, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents

Thomas Malone (2006) has defined collective intelligence as:
“Groups of individuals doing things collectively that seem intelligent”As reported in earlier postings, the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence is working deligently to answer the following:

“How can people and computers be connected so that collectively they act more intelligently than any individual, group, or computer has ever done before? “

Malone (2006) suggests that there are at least three types of research that need to be performed in order to answer the question.

1. Collecting interesting examples, and “systematically describing interesting cases of collective intelligence.”

2. Create new examples of collective intelligence environments.

3. Systematic studies and experiments.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

References
Malone, T. (2006). What is collective intelligence and what will we do about it? Retrieved January 6, 2008, from http://cci.mit.edu/about/MaloneLaunchRemarks.html

MIT’s Center for Collective Intelligence hopes to answer the question: “How can people and computers be connected so that collectively they act more intelligently than any individuals, groups, or computers have ever done before?”

Klein (2007) addressed the inherent problems of large-scale projects involving collective intelligence, inhis paper “Achieving collective intelligence via large-scale on-line argumentation“. He notedthat there are limits within current technologies for “large-scale deliberation.” He stated that while email, instant messaging, open forums, wikis and blogs do allow for individuals to interact globally there are “serious shortcomings from the standpoint of enhancing collective intelligence.”

The content captured by such tools is notorious for often being unsystematic, highly repetitive, and of highly variable quality. At its best (as with Wikipedia) a carefully nutured community process can be effective at capturing short descriptive articles about non-controversial topics, but all those approaches tend to break down when faced with the need to come up with coherent responses to complex problem that involve many competing perspectives. In such cases, discussions can be hijacked by a narrow set of “hot” issues, small voices can be lost, and achieving or identifying consensus becomes almost impossible.”

Klein (2007) stated that tools such as argumentation or rationale capture are a way to help enable brainstorming on controversial topics. They can help organize interaction by having users “structure their interactions into a network consisting of three kinds of entitites:

1. Issues (questions to be answered)
2. Options (alternative answers for a question)
3. Arguments (Claims that support or detract from some other statement.)

Challenges in Creating Large Scale Collective Intelligence
In search of creating large scale collective intelligence banks to solve critical pressing problems such as global warming, reacting to medical epidemics, etc, Klien (2007) has identified numerous design issues.

1. How do we avoid needless duplication?
Explanation: When there are many contributors working concurrently, and the sheer volume of entries grows, it is no longer possible to capture an argument structure within a single screen. It therefore is increasingly likely that someone will introduce an issue, option, or argument aht has already been posted by someone else.

2. How do participants converge on the key issues?
Explanation: Converging on key issues is unlikely to occur prior to posting into the system, as it might in a small-scale setting, especially a facilitated one. This suggests that tools and/or procedures should be made available to enable deliberations about the structure of the argumentation, and not just the content.3. Sheer volume of posters and entries increases exponentially in larger systems.

3. How do we ensure wide participation in entering/editing content?
Explanation: People are reluctant to replace, or modify work by someone else, even if the posting has serious failings. Reluctant to offer diverging opinions if the bulk of the existing arguments all seem to point in another direction.

4. How do we ensure that the argument is structured correctly?
Explanation: In an open system, we can expect that many of the participants will not be experts in how to structure argument maps effectively. This suggests that a large-scale argumentation system needs to support a continuum of formalization, allowing people to enter content in the form that they are comfortable with, be it extended prose or fully-structured argument maps.

5. How do we ensure succinct argumentation about options?
Explanation: We need some tools and/or procedures to summarize and even replace discussion threads with more succinct forms.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Additional Resources:
Wearesmarterthanme.org: Creating a book of business best practices written collaboratively.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

References
Klein, M. (2007). Achieving collective intelligence via large-scale onl-line argumentation: MIT Center for Collective Intelligence.Retrieved January 1, 2008, from http://cci.mit.edu/publications/CCIwp2007-01.pdf