Web of identies and forming collaborative learning networks

Social Web of identities and collaborative networked learning
As we move more and more into the world of emerging and rapidly changing information availability and knowledge creation we turn more and more to collaborative networked learning and networking. When we engaging in the creation of networks for learning we want to make sure that we network with others who can help us learn or who might be a vessel for knowledge to facilitate our particular learning.
As social networking in its many forms becomes more accessible and transparent so do the identities and social graphs of the participants. With interchangeable, open social web identity data to accompany the more static stored knowledge data available today we have the identify data necessary to form networks for learning which include the right mix of persons contributing dynamic knowledge along with supporting repositories of more static, stored knowledge. For a brief overview of recent trends in making web identities machine-accessible see the recent entry by Alexander Korth from Read, Write Web.

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.

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

Open Communication and self-organizing, inductive learning

Open communication systems and the life of self organizing, inductive learner
The life of the learner is a self organizing, inductive process. Skill decay occurs in a relative closed system where the learner does not engage in on going learning. The integrated, col­laborative system I wish to address are ones which are open learning environments. One key aspect of these environments is the use of technology to support open communication among learners. Open communication systems provide access to information from any vari­ety of sources on an on-going basis on demand. But the learning environment does stop with access it also includes support for learning. I wish to address both of these issues (1) open communication systems that provide for collaborative networked learning and (2) highlight features of software that will facilitate the learner in the learning process. Thinking about open systems gives on an entirely different way of how to define learning. Rather than being due to the presence or storage of some substance in the mind, one thinks of learning in terms of pattern or connections. In essence, learning through intake of stimulus results in mental ordering and re-ordering within the living organism.
Open communication systems, which allow any learner to engage in live, private multiple-media communication with anyone else on the global or the access the stored mes­sage in any media format from any location on the network. Ultimately, the learner would not have to know the physical location of another communicator or the database of stored messages, instead s/he would search or receive customized feeds to any located or mobile device. Currently virtualization is providing the technology and standards which will make open communication systems a practical, pervasive reality. Learning in the open system environ­ment of unlimited, open access to expert ubiquitous messages has potential for amazing changes in the way one learns and the control of the distribution and creation and re-presentation of knowledge.

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.