Notes: Learning webs: Learning in weblog networks

Efimova, L. & Fiedler. S. (2004). Learning webs: Learning in weblog networks. Proceedings of the 2004 IADIS International Conference on Web Based Communities.

Abstract:
This article explores how professionally oriented weblog projects support the emergence of loosely coupled learning networks. We provide an overview of the technical infrastructure of this particular form of personal webpublishing and the social ecosystems that emerge through current weblog authoring practices. Furthermore, we suggest that some weblog ecosystems can be conceptualized as learning webs. These learning webs appear to meet the specific needs of knowledge workers for flexible and dynamic learning environments. Some preliminary results of qualitative data collection in this area are shared and some further lines of research are proposed.

Ecosystems of weblogs seem to support peer-filtering of ideas and serendipitous connections between people based on their interests. At the same time their open-ended nature allows going beyond “group think” by supporting diversity and bringing together multiple perspectives and backgrounds.

A weblog provides its author with personal space for learning that does not impose a communal learning agenda and learning style. At the same time learners are not alienated and can benefit from a community feedback, validation and further development of ideas.

Regular reading of other weblogs provides novices with opportunities to learn from experts’ “thinking in public”, selecting role models and engaging in conversations beyond geographical or disciplinary borders.

These published and continuously updated collections of artifacts form a dynamic and constantly changing, largely de-centralized ecosystem for self-organized learning and social networking.

Notes: Social software: E-learning beyond learning management systems

Dalsgaard. C. (2006). Social software: E-learning beyond learning management systems. European Journal of Open, Distance, and E-Learning.

Abstract:
The article argues that it is necessary to move e-learning beyond learning management systems and engage students in an active use of the web as a resource for their self- governed, problem-based and collaborative activities. The purpose of the article is to discuss the potential of social software to move e-learning beyond learning management systems. An approach to use of social software in support of a social constructivist approach to e-learning is presented, and it is argued that learning management systems do not support a social constructivist approach which emphasizes self-governed learning activities of students. The article suggests a limitation of the use of learning management systems to cover only administrative issues. Further, it is argued that students’ self- governed learning processes are supported by providing students with personal tools and engaging them in different kinds of social networks.

…weblogs primarily support independent and individual presentation.
A weblog which is maintained by a single individual can function as that individual’s representation on the web. This representation can form the basis of socialization on the web. When a weblog is related to other weblogs, the weblogs become social, and communities or networks are formed. It is possible to subscribe to weblogs using RSS feeds.

Students’ self-governed and problem-solving activities are considered the focal point of a learning process. This conception of a learning process means that it is not possible to structure or pre-determine the students’ activities in a learning process – the activities must develop on the basis of the student’s own problem-solving. As a consequence, a learning environment needs, in the words of Land & Hannafin (1996), to be open-ended. An open- ended learning environment provides students with multiple possibilities for activities. A similar approach is outlined by Jonassen (1999) who presents a model for designing ‘constructivist learning environments’. Students’ activities in constructivist learning environments are initiated by a problem or project. Surrounding the student are different tools and resources which support the student’s problem-solving process.

LMS are to a large extent developed for the management and delivery of learning – and not for self-governed activities of students. Learning processes of the kind described in the social constructivist approach outlined in this article cannot be managed. What can be managed, however, is the administrative aspects of a course. Thus, a management system is limited to organizing administrative issues.

Personal tools are defined as tools owned and controlled by students. They are used by students for various kinds of construction and reflection; for instance, writing, presenting, drawing or programming. There are at least two kinds of personal tools:

  1. individual tools, and
  2. collaborative tools

Networks between people working collaboratively could be students working together in groups. Such networks are primarily supported by personal tools. They are networks of closely related participants, meaning that participants will not only have access to each other’s personal pages, but will share personal pages.

Seeing each other’s work, network and references can provide a basis for discussions between students and teachers. Such discussions are different from discussions in a discussion forum. The difference is that discussions based on weblogs arise from the individual entries of students. Further, a weblog is a personal page whereas a discussion forum is shared; writing individual entries on your personal weblog is different from participating in a discussion. Since students can subscribe to different weblogs, they can create their individual network, which means that their participation in discussions is not limited to specific discussion forums within an LMS. The potential of social software tools such as wikis, weblogs combined with RSS feeds and social bookmarking is to facilitate closer relationships and more frequent interaction between students and teachers. This is facilitated by their sharing of work and references and their engagement in discussions.

The learning processes do not take place within the management system, but develop through the self-governed work of students which is manifested in personal tools such as weblogs or wikis. Separate from the system, the student has different personal tools for construction, presentation, collaboration, etc. In relation to self-governed, problem-based and collaborative activities, the most important tools to the learning process are personal tools. They directly support the active process involved in working on problems and continuously constructing a solution. A personal tool is a manifestation of the work of students. In other words it can be seen as a manifestation of the learning process. This means that students’ participation in networks is motivated by the process directed at solving a problem. Networks are secondary to personal tools.

…students not only learn a specific topic, but they are equipped with tools to navigate and make active use of the web to solve future problems. After the end of a course or an education, the networks continue to exist. Continued participation in social networks and creation of new networks give people access to a vast number of people and other resources.

Notes: An introduction to latent semantic analysis

Landauer et al. An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse processes (1998)

LSA produces measures of word-word, word-passage and passage-passage relations that are well correlated with several human cognitive phenomena involving association or semantic similarity.

…the similarity estimates derived by LSA are not simple contiguity frequencies, co-occurrence counts, or correlations in usage, but depend on a powerful mathematical analysis that is capable of correctly inferring much deeper relations (thus the phrase “Latent Semantic”), and as a consequence are often much better predictors of human meaning-based judgments and performance…

LSA uses as its initial data not just the summed contiguous pairwise (or tuple-wise) co-occurrences of words but the detailed patterns of occurrences of very many words over very large numbers of local meaning-bearing contexts, such as sentences or paragraphs, treated as unitary wholes. Thus it skips over how the order of words produces the meaning of a sentence to capture only how differences in word choice and differences in passage meanings are related.

It is this dimensionality reduction step, the combining of surface information into a deeper abstraction, that captures the mutual implications of words and passages. Thus, an important component of applying the technique is finding the optimal dimensionality for the final representation.

LSA is a fully automatic mathematical/statistical technique for extracting and inferring relations of expected contextual usage of words in passages of discourse. It is not a traditional natural language processing or artificial intelligence program; it uses no humanly constructed dictionaries, knowledge bases, semantic networks, grammars, syntactic parsers, or morphologies, or the like, and takes as its input only raw text parsed into words defined as unique character strings and separated into meaningful passages or samples such as sentences or paragraphs.

(basically, you set up a matrix of words, and the count of their occurrences in passages of text (say, in sentences of a paragraph, etc…), and can then crunch the matrix to find correlations between different combinations of words) – DN