Collaborative Networked Learning (CNL) for MOOC's

A massive open online course (MOOC) is a type of online course, which packages content, aimed at large-scale participation and open access via  the Internet. They are one of the recent developments in e-learning in the post-information age in which open educational resources are available to all. Because of the massive scale of learners, and the likelihood of a high student-teacher ratio, MOOCs require instructional design that facilitates large-scale feedback and interaction. There are two basic approaches:

• Crowd-sourced interaction and feedback by leveraging the MOOC network, e.g. for peer-review, group collaboration
• Automated feedback through objective, online assessments, e.g. quizzes and exams

 I would like to expand upon two methods by sharing my observations regarding Collaborative Networked Learning (CNL) to encourage CNL as the design of MOOC’s evolve. Yes, there is crowd-sourced interaction among the large group of participants in the different MOOC’s which are organized around particular topics, but more interesting for me are the smaller, self-organized learning groups which are forming online. Recent reports indicate that outside the formal structure of the MOOC”S self-directed groups are forming for collaborative learning. The learners in these “breakout” groups are utilizing and applying the basic concepts of Collaborative Networked Learning in order to connect with one another around a particular challenge. Collaborative Networked Learning (CNL) involves utilization of induction, synthesis, and dialog more often than deduction, analysis, and one way information transmission. I would suggest that CNL could be encouraged as a part of all MOOC’s worldwide. In essence, MOOCS would provide the content for the learners which enable what is being called a “flipped classroom” where the actual interaction and forming of connections among ideas occurs after the lecture content is distributed to the masses in Massive Open Online Courses. It is important to build CNL into the overall structure of MOOC’s, and, encourage the learning which can occur through real collaboration among the emerging DIY learners around the world in post-information age learning environments.

Shared public display for F2F team collaboration

Advanced collaboration suite for small groups engaging in F2F collaborative networked learning. Some folks are still sending out series of emails when they can use a shared display to work more efficiently. Discuss issues and make decisions as you go so that everyone stays aligned. Since the work happens on the big public screen, everyone can see exactly what has been done and offer opinions about changing the content in real time. Networked, co-located groups can share and manipulate content on shared public display. All the team’s joint work is done on the big screen, which is driven by the TeamSpot “Host” computer. Rather than huddling around a individual’s computer in a small group setting that only one person controls, anyone in the team can set to, and manipulate content, on the shared public display that no one person owns but everyone can share. A team member can make their content available to the public display or go “off line” to research additional relevant content to enhance their contribution to the group while others work on the public display. Anyone in the group can redirect their own cursor onto the public work surface and work on the Host computer’s display as if their mouse and keyboard were plugged directly into it. Multiple people can even work on the big screen at the same time, each with a uniquely identified cursor. In addition, “save archive” creates artifacts of the group knowledge which is a record which can be studied by all participants and shared as a mobile artifact of the group collaborative learning. I am hopeful that the same software could be shared by virtual groups but it does not appear to be an option at this time. I do believe that the design features evidenced in this package are a step forward. Of course, one will have to consider the overall pricing and implementation of this particular package in relation to individual enterprise needs. For more information on the related products and pricing contact Tidebreak

Robin Good's 2010 Best Collaborative Tools

Robin Good has published an extensive mind map of collaborative tools. Follow the links on the map to locate many new tools to support CNL and CLW. Let me know which tools you find helpful. Collaboration Tools 2010 Mind Map

Conversation to Knowledge Flowdock for CLW

Teams engaged in Collaborative Learning Work are often engaged in "conversations" with one another. The conversations using different social media take on value as part of the ongoing, expanding knowledge base over the life of the team. Flowdock represents a new way for team members to capture by tagging some bits of knowledge from these conversations. The tagged bits can be found later when needed by the group. Flowdock allows a participant to tag in any of the different communication tools used by the team. One accesses Flowdock tagged knowledge bits in a cloud for the particular group , so it is accessability anywhere. Mobile access is underdevelopment. Interesting beginning on ways to capture and use conversations.

Preserving Diversity and Avoiding Group Think

If all members of the group have the same shareable Group Learning Environment of authority rated, aggregated content, we run the risk of creating “group think” where all members jump on the bandwagon of the shared meme. When this occurs then the authority ratings will perhaps increase giving “juice” to ideas that the group is accepting without little diversity of opinion. It is equality important, however, for the members to pursue that own specialized P.L.E.’s of interest in order to avoid what has often been called “group think,” when all members agree with each other without expressing alternative opinions and views. Here is an interesting expression of this idea from William Gibson’s blog regarding the Amateur.

“Then send Pamela,” she said. “She understands all that. You have an army of people who understand all that. You must.”

“But that’s exactly it. Because they ‘understand all that’, they won’t find the edge. They won’t find the new. And worse, they’ll trample on it, inadvertently crush it, beneath the mediocrity inherent in professional competence. I need a virtual amateur for this. A freelancer.”

Perhaps we all become Amateurs learning from one another as we preserve diversity toward out goal of collective learning.

Sharable Aggregated Group Learning Environments

Sharable Aggregated Group Learning Environments. PLE and Group
News Aggregators for “Sharable” Group Knowledge base.

Content Process Master for CNL

As part of the planning phase for the group, it is useful to set up predetermined category feeds through the identification of key contributors and the tags that are useful for creating and feeding a sharable mash-up of content relevant to the group purpose(s).
If the group has a leader or moderator, s/he might want to take on role of content process master to help establish and identify evolving content. Or, the role of content master could be preformed or assigned just like any other task role in the group. The content process master will want to determine which news feeds to filter into their shareable learning environments. Robin Good has discussed the concept of news mastering and explained the basic strategies necessary to get started. He continues to demonstrate his mastery of news mastering with his prolific daily service on tools and concepts in social media and collaboration. Michael Kirkpatrick additionally provides a set of steps for getting up to speed quickly by creating a social media cheat sheet. Retrieved February 24, 2009 from

One tool which has been recommended for pulling all the relevant content together is Yahoo, Pipes.
Additionally, work in relation to communication measurement of Public Relations and Marketing, is providing another set of tools for tracking evolving relevant dialogs and perhaps establishing authority metrics. Recently, the focus has shifted from the older methods of measuring the “distributed” messages of marketers to new approaches to measuring the “non-controlled” content. As search engine optimization (SEO) and social networking becomes more a focus of product branding and messaging I see methods for tracking frequency, referral links and time on page, tracking conversations in microblogging streams such as on twitter.com and identifying the reach and trust of influencers in a market segment being used and refined. I believe we will begin to see new spin off in this field which can serve as models for content tracking, filtering and presenting perhaps through a “learning dashboard,” which make the latest, highest authority customized and delivered to whatever device, where ever we are at the moment.

Creating shareable group learning environment for members of a CNL group helps members develop a common vocabulary and knowledge base relevant to the group goals. By adding the same tags from RSS or Social Bookmarking aggregation, members stay current and have sharable, meaningful knowledge. The the group sharable environment builds upon the concept of P.L.E.'s. Downes, Stephen (2009) Online Learning: Trends, Models And Dynamics In Our Education Future - Part 2,

The personal learning environment is more of a conferencing tool than it is a content tool. The focus of a personal learning environment is more on creation and communication than it is consumption and completion. It is best to think of the interfaces facilitated by a personal learning environment as ways to create and manipulate content, as applications rather than resources

.
I believe we are building upon the concept of P.L.E. to create group shareable learning environments which require more of a personal commitment for a time and goals for interdependent learning rather than just a loose network of persons dropping in and out.

"I think, therefore I am" contrasts "We participate, therefore we are"

John Seely Brown, innovator, scholar and scientist weighs in on the differences between the older modes of knowing and CNL modes. Brown contrasts Cartesian individual learning, “ I think, therefore I am” with “ We participate, therefore, we are” mode of learning which allows us to link together to be and learn with one another in a group. In Mind's on Fire: Open Education, the long tail, and learning 2.0, John Seely Brown and Richard Adler contrast the two modes in this way:

The emphasis on social learning stands in sharp contrast to the traditional Cartesian view of knowledge and learning—a view that has largely dominated the way education has been structured for over one hundred years. The Cartesian perspective assumes that knowledge is a kind of substance and that pedagogy concerns the best way to transfer this substance from teachers to students. By contrast, instead of starting from the Cartesian premise of “I think, therefore I am,” and from the assumption that knowledge is something that is transferred to the student via various pedagogical strategies, the social view of learning says, “We participate, therefore we are.”

This perspective shifts the focus of our attention from the content of a subject to the learning activities and human interactions around which that content is situated. This perspective also helps to explain the effectiveness of study groups. Students in these groups can ask questions to clarify areas of uncertainty or confusion, can improve their grasp of the material by hearing the answers to questions from fellow students, and perhaps most powerfully, can take on the role of teacher to help other group members benefit from their understanding (one of the best ways to learn something is, after all, to teach it to others).

Today and in the future, we have technology in place that allows us to direct our own CNL into and with a community of practitioners in learning in any field that will permit us to participate in their endeavors

Planning--learning with and from "weak ties"

Weak ties and collaborative learning--who are your most useful collaborators for any given learning task?

I was reading an article this past weekend “Brave New World of Digital Intimacy” by Clive Thompson in the New York Times, September 5, 2008. Thompson made a very interesting and useful point to think about when engaging in collaborative networked leaning. If one only selects, “friends” or e-vites others who are part of your intimate circle of friends and colleagues to participate, one may not get the richness of insight and ideas that we are likely to get by e-viting or soliciting information from our “weak ties.” Here is how Thompson (2008,p.4) explained the idea:

“This rapid growth of weak ties can be a very good thing. Sociologists have long found that “weak ties” greatly expand your ability to solve problems. For example, if you’re looking for a job and ask your friends, they won’t be much help; they’re too similar to you, and thus probably won’t have any leads that you don’t already have yourself. Remote acquaintances will be much more useful, because they’re farther a field, yet still socially intimate enough to want to help you out. Many avid Twitter users — the ones who fire off witty posts hourly and wind up with thousands of intrigued followers — explicitly milk this dynamic for all it’s worth, using their large online followings as a way to quickly answer almost any question.”

Of course, all of your “connections” are available from our contact or friends list by any mobile device anywhere, anytime.

Planning--findability implicaitons for design and development

I was recently looking over the seven characteristics of findability formulated by Judith Breck. The seven principles have implications for how one plans and implements CNL today and in the Web 3.0 learning future. I do believe that “findability” is a critical global challenge for the on-going activity of collaborative networked learners. I want us to take a learner or user centered focus and on the ways to support the learner and learning-worker. Freeing or unbundling the info-chunks for learners' access is the first challenge for the planner/information architect; it presents opportunities to create paths for learners who need more guidance as well as freeing experienced learners to direct their own paths.

Findability--Implications for the planning, design and development processes

Learner driven design and information chunking.

1. Consider the implications of learner or user driven design in the learning and work environment.
In order to design information to meet the needs of different users directly it is important to understand the nature of the work of the users and the tasks they perform. When one focuses only on content, the "logical" order of the content guides the development. When one designs for the user, the users needs and tasks form the basis for ordering, labeling and presenting information.
2. Consider the new skills required to chunk content.
Designing architectures for multiple paths of access, which are controlled by the user rather than primarily the designer, require knowledge design skills and domain knowledge. Designers need to develop not only a knowledge of the particular tasks and content of the discipline from the user perspective, but they also need experience with object-oriented, modular design. A designer needs to understand the underlying structure of the field and the corresponding logical relationships between the content chunks, and how to design for flexible, "random" access by multiple users from different entry points.
Static and dynamic modeling of information and users
1. Consider both static organization and display of information units and dynamic modeling and display.
• Static organization requires less time and effort for design and development than dynamic modeling; however, dynamic modeling is more likely meet the precise needs of the user, reducing search time and increasing productivity. One notices static organization where there is one pattern and set of relationships defined by the designer(or packager) of information. The order of presentation of the information will always be the same. For example, in paper based Text Based Instruction the relationship between units such as paragraphs on a page is static; the implicit order on the page is "before" or "after" with minimal opportunity to explore other relationships easily such as "related to" links as in cross referencing. Static organization is also evident in hypertext systems in which the 'links' are created at the time of packaging and displayed as defined when selected by the user. Although the chunks may be randomly followed if the user chooses, they go to the same content chuck.
• Dynamic modeling as planned for Web 3.0 collaboration and other model based systems involves specifying the nature of each chunk of information as an object in a knowledge base. The types of relationship of one object-chunk to any other chunks are defined as "variables." Depending upon the model of the user/learner and its current state at the time of search, the "value" of the variables will changes, and the information displayed to the user could change. The tools and skills required to model are different from those for creating static organization and again are different from those required for cross referencing within a static organizational structure.
2. Consider the learner and the learner model as an important aspect of the environment.
Initially the user/learner model might handle only three identifiable groups: the experi¬enced expert, the new-to-the-domain leaner, and the experienced self-directed learner in a related domain. The designer would need to understand these users and their needs in order to develop the user models. The knowledge made available to each user could be different depending upon the model for the user at the time of access.
Ultimately, if the system is to be designed to support the user based upon "learner profile" and the "learning environment", then dynamic modeling is the design strategy of choice. It affords the opportunity to model the user(s) and continually update the model of the user in order to provide access to the information needed at the moment.

Planning--Select Channels/Media

As part of the planning process I feel it is important to look at the tools for collaboration. In my mind there are at least two key factors--immediacy of feedback/response and media richness.

IMMEDIACY
Synchronous in Time
Audio Conferencing
Video Conferencing

Synchronous in Time and Space
Group co-located in person
Group co-located in simulated conferencing rooms
Groups in 3-D meeting rooms with avatars

Asynchronous in neither time nor space
Text based conferencing/discussion forums
E-mail group distribution
Wiki for collaborative authoring

MEDIA RICHNESS
Text-based computer conferencing offers the lowest cost,
globally accessible strategy minimal set-up time, using already existing computer conferencing software

Audio conferencing offers the next lowest cost which is most accessible globally via cell phone for small group global collaboration

Video conferencing offers more social presence with higher cost
Small group video chat available economically
Video conferencing offers a slightly higher cost for larger group

All different combinations available on desktop, wireless laptop, cell phone or specific purpose video collaboration suites to match the demands of the task at the moment.

Planning--created or self-organizing systems.

Planning for CNL—created or self-organizing systems.

In the "walled garden" of structured learning and working, one may be assigned to a pre-existing or pre-determine group. However, in the new social operating system (S.0.S.) we can use our resources to decide who we want to work together and either invite or allow for self-organizing systems to emerge.
One of the most important aspects of planning is the issue of trust and credibility in the S.O.S.

Trust and credibility—in the social operating system
One important aspect of the planning process is who to include in the collaboration. If the collaboration is planned with invited participants, then the organizer can invite the participants based on there interest , knowledge or wiliness. If an existing group, takes on a new goal, then the members would be in place and the focus shifts to planning the process of collaboration. If the group is open to others who might want to participate, then an open public announcement might solicit members.

Trust and credibility—in the newly formed group.
One of the most challenging issues for groups, who are newly formed, is to tackle how the members view one another. Can I trust the other individual? Is what they have to say credible? How do we form these judgments if we do not have previous knowledge or association with the members. In the past, we might have asked friends if they knew anything about the person(s) and what they thought of them. We mind also have consulted co-workers, or co-learners who see if they had collaborated with a person before the current grouping. We might also search for background information such as blog posts, co-published project reports or profiles in a social network.
Trust and credibility--among our connections. When using our social operating system we move one step beyond our own simple search of our social network, we might begin to take advantage of “social operating systems” which will show us the connections and linkages operating among any given group of co-learners, with an active past of learning and working.

Planning—Determining goal structure

Planning—Determining goal structure

I wanted to address a rather critical difference between CNL groups and the traditional educational and work worlds. In a CNL group the members share a cooperative goal structure. The cooperative structures contrast with two other structures--competitive and individualistic. Here are the differences to consider.
• A cooperative goal structure is the desired norm for CNL. The Johnson bothers have been writing about and researching these differences as a major focus of their academic and publishing careers. In a cooperative group members see a positive cor¬relation among group members' goal attainments- that is, they perceive that they can achieve their goal if and only if the other members with whom they are linked obtain their goal. I think it is important to add the concept of interdependence here as well. For example, when a group lifts a heavy object or members of a software development team integrate and debug a new application, all members experience the success.
• Competitive goal are not as effective for CNL. In a competitive situation, there is a negative correlation; members perceive that they can obtain their goals only if other members fail to obtain their goal. We create winners and we create losers but don’t really create a cohesive group working toward a common, shared goal.
• The individualistic goal structure is inappropriate for CNL. In contrast to these two group goal structures is the individu¬alistic goal structure common in many learning environments. The individual is rewarded for his/her own achievement and the achievement is generally unrelated to that of others. I do believe it is possible for individuals to self-direct their own experiences but it is not the goal for CNL.
CNL groups are based on a shared cooperative goal structure. As work occurs more and more in teams requiring the combined expertise of different members, the cooperative goal structure of CNL is more likely to support the overall goals of work group process than highly competitive or individualistic approaches.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1998) Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning (5th Edition) (Paperback), New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Planning--Determing Purpose

Planning CNL--Determining Purpose
To make Collaborative Networked Learning (CNL) experiences focused and efficient, I have summarized several basic structures to help with planning.

Purpose defined by organizer
The organizer/ facilitator of CNL might defined the purpose in advance of securing participation. In this type of CNL, participants would join the group based upon a desire to share in accomplishing the pre-defined purpose. The purpose could be very specific such as: " The members of this group will prepare a marketing strategy for value added services for a CNL Platform;" or more general, such as: The members of this group will learn about and share information regarding common creative licensing issues for organizational learning.”
Purpose defined by the group
The purpose might initially be more loosely defined, based upon the prior knowledge of the selected group of participants such as, "the members of this group will pool their knowledge to develop a long-range adoption plan for CNL." Or, "the purpose of this CNL forum is for experts and novices to share their experiences moderating a
learning forum." As the group learns more they will continue to refine
their purpose. Learning in the context of problem-solving is a example of a more general group purpose, where the specific learning and outcomes
are refined based upon the goal and prior knowledge of the invited
participants. For example, the experts from different fields might be involved in developing a crisis management plan as their outcome.
Purpose defined by on-going needs
The learning purpose in these situations is open-ended and on-going. The group with a broadly defined learning goal will determine specific operational purposes based upon current needs. Frequently, existing learning groups define their purpose based upon a long-term mission. On-going learning within a particular domain and group is motivated by the rapid rates of change being experienced in our society and the work group or knowledge domain.
The group which starts with an open purpose may from time to time want to refine their purpose, based upon new information and current mission, for two reasons:

to know what they have accomplished and that the experience was worth the effort

to establish criteria for completeness, or "doneness."

When one speaks of purpose-driven CNL, it does not necessarily imply either a closely defined initial purpose or an open purpose. It implies that as part of the experience the group develops a shared purpose and that their interaction is focused on accomplishing that purpose. The purpose-driven interaction criteria distinguishes CNL group activities from general personal blogs or chat rooms in which individuals post and share the latest available information in an area.
While the group has a stated work-learning related purpose such as those mentioned earlier, it is also likely to fulfill a social functional for the members. It is important that both the stated purpose and the personal purposes of the members be considered as the group interaction continues

Three Basic CNL formats

Selecting a CNL format
I have implemented Three basic CNL formats successfully. Each of the formats has its own unigue challenges and appropriateness.

• All Electronic in which participants accomplish
  their learning and co-creation of knowledge all on-line in any
  virtual meeting "space." The electronic digial, mediated form could be text-based, audio or video collaboration or any mix of media. Regular audio and video conferences for sharing ideas,debriefing and developing strategies are also common examples of
  this form of collaboration.


• Before or After an in-person group meeting, such as the
  electronic pre- meeting or organization. Before a face-to-face
  meeting, electronic interactions provide an opportunity
  for all participants to review and share basic background
  content prior to real-time interaction. After an in-
  person meeting, the group can continue the interaction
  and address new issues as they occur.


• Mixed mode in which participants meet together in person
  or listen to broadcast video in conjunction with
  interacting on-line. A "blended" or "hybrid" group
  provides collaborators an opportunity to interact
  with each other between face-to-face meetings. Mixed-mode formats
  often integrate, video broadcasts,text based materials, networked collaboration with co-located meetings.

Communication and Learning System Continuums

Continuum of Communication Goals

Learning...Personal Exploration...Knowledge
Known      and Discovery of      Creation/Personal 
Answers    of Established        Transformation
           Knowledge

---

Corollary Continuum for message and lesson design structure

Fixed  Path...Guided Exploration...Open Ended 
                                   Access & 
                                   Experience

---

Corollary Continuum of User/designer Control

Designer       User Driven
Control----Bounded Exploration-----Self-directed

---

Closed and Open Models of Learning and Knowing

Closed Systems..................Open System 
Models of Learning              Models of Knowing

---

Traditional Education, Training and CNL Models

Traditional Education and Training Models	CNL Models
Topics are stable	Topics are unstable or being created
Problems or questions has a known answer	A problem or question has no clearn answer yet
Someone (teacher, expert, course developer) has the answer	No one person has the answer--it emerges from within a group or organization
The answer is "transmitted" through a familiar learning technology	The "answers" are obtained by groups in cooperation,who may not be co-located
Learner receives and knower gives	Knowledge needs to be captured, synthesized, generated, filtered and summarized
A structured (linear)approach is usually taken	An associative structured or networked approach is taken
Interaction with other learners or knowers is minimal (e.g. classroom lecture,DVD, or Courseware)	Interaction may be asynchronous or synchronous between co-learners
Packaging Information	Networking co-learning

Open and Closed Systems of Learning and Knowing

Closed Systems Models	Open Systems Models
Topics are stable	Topics are unstable or being created
Problems or questions has a known answer	A problem or question has no clearn answer yet
Someone (teacher, expert, course developer) has the answer	No one person has the answer--it emerges from within a group or organization
The answer is "transmitted" through a familiar learning technology	The "answers" are obtained by groups in cooperation,who may not be co-located
Learner receives and knower gives	Knowledge needs to be captured, synthesized, generated, filtered and summarized
A structured (linear)approach is usually taken	An associative structured or networked approach is taken
Interaction with other learners or knowers is minimal (e.g. classroom lecture,DVD, or Courseware)	Interaction may be asynchronous or synchronous between co-learners
Packaging	Human Networking

Collaborative Networked Learning (CNL) Overview

Collaborative Networked Learning Overview
Much work in the information age enterprise involves collaborative, team oriented tasks. Learning workers share information with one another in order to accomplish common tasks in a small group. Professionals share information with each other, and learn some­thing about each others specialization in order to reach consensus on a common problem. Assembly line workers have increased pro­ductivity when workers learned from each other how their different individual parts of the task fit together to produce the whole. All of these different learning workers are engaging in activities which involve collaboration.
Life-long learning in the workplace is becoming a necessity rather than an ideal. The need for collaboration is great and will continue. By facilitating collaborative methods of learning, we could help workers acquire individually and collectively the rapidly, changing knowledge required in the high-tech workplace.
3. Collaboration is a condition of learning in the information work­place.
While the worker in the industrial era factory learned how to ma­nipulate objects and memorized actions, the worker in the modern organization learns how to think, learn and apply information to a task.
• Workers need to engage in activities that allow them to ap­proach problems from different vantage points, testing out assumptions,and redefining meanings,i.e.creative thinking in order to develop new viewpoints.
• Workers need to engage in the social,collaborative exchange of ideas in order to pose hypothetical problems, general hypothe­ses, conduct experiments and reflect on outcomes. Basically, workers are learning in groups to make meaning out of infor­mation. Not only do workers need to make meaning out of the information but in order to actually perform their jobs they need to be able to share that meaning with others.
This blog is to serve as a basic resource for individuals planning, implementing, and participating in Collaborative Networked Learning (CNL) communities as co-learners. The general guidelines and discussion here draw upon published research and from experience with successful applications of different CNL models.