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