Network vs groups in higher education

1. Blending Groups and Networks in Higher Education

1.1. A pervasive ‘buzz’ in education these days relates to development of ‘blended learning” (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004) . In most cases the ‘blending’ refers to developing educational programs that employ an appropriate mix of face-to-face and online activities.

2. A Model of Networked Learning

2.1. In an attempt to provide a guiding heuristic for learning in a net infused context, my colleague Jon Dron and I (Dron & Anderson, 2007) have developed a model for network learning that focuses on learning in three “aggregations of the many”.

2.1.1. The most familiar level is the group

2.1.2. The second level of the “many” is the network.

2.1.2.1. Networks connect distributed individuals. (Koper, Rusman& Sloep, 2005) define A Learning Network as “an ensemble of actors, institutions and learning resources which are mutually connected through and supported by information and communication technologies in such a way that the network self-organizes”(P. 18).

2.1.2.2. . Entry and exit to networks is usually easy and persons drift in and out of network activity and participation based on relevance, time availability and other personal constraints.

2.1.2.3. The final level of aggregation of the Many is collectives

2.1.2.3.1. . Collectives are machine-aggregated representations of the activities of large number of individuals. They achieve value by extracting information from the individual, group, and network activities of large numbers of networked users.

2.1.2.3.2. For example storing one’s favorite net resources on a social bookmarking site such as del.icio.us can have individual benefit as the resource can easily be retrieved, organized and managed by that individual owner.

3. Challenges of Groups

3.1. Group learning has been the norm for formal education for at least two centuries. It is thus a familiar model for learners, teachers and education administrators. There is considerable evidence demonstrating the increase in completion and participation rates in group-based formal learning activities as compared to individual learning models (Coldeway, 1986); (Anderson, Annand& Wark, 2005) .

3.2. However, these advantages are traded off by restrictions in access (group cohorts commence only a few times a year and are arbitrarily paced) and many group activities include face-to-face meetings. As importantly, group leadership and direction by teachers can inhibit the development of self directed learning skills (Hiemstra, 1994)

4. The Network solution

4.1. The most compelling arguments to date arise from the value of weak connections, increases in social capital and the development of lifelong learning skills.

4.2. The concept of social capital has gained currency among both researchers and the public since Bourdieu (Bourdieu, 1986) differentiated among economic, cultural and social forms of capital and Robert Puttman (Putman, 2000) deplored the loss of social capital in his book Bowling Alone.

4.3. . Sandefur and Lauman (Sandefur & Laumann, 1988) argue that social capital confers three major benefits upon its owners. These are information, influence and control, and social solidarity. Unlike economic capital though, social capital is not depleted through use, rather just the opposite occurs. The more we use our social capital, the stronger and larger it becomes.

4.4. A number of authors have differentiated between types of social capital. Bonding social capital serves to increase and enhance reciprocity and connectedness among homogeneous groups of people.

5. Many learners loosely tied

5.1. Internet scholars (Wellman, Boase& Chen, 2002) have written about the distinction between ‘dense bounded groups’ and ‘sparse unbounded networks

5.2. Distributed networks, of course, eliminate this constraint and allow us to form both networks and groups with people who may be very widely physically distributed.

5.3. Beyond physical proximity, networks are supportive of the creation of weak bonds (Granovetter, 1973) that serve as bridging connections to other groups and networks

5.4. Networks and other organizational models of human organization associated with weak ties offer greater diversity, provide wider and less redundant sources of information and opinion and serve to increase individual and community forms of bridging capital (Ellison et al., 2007)

5.5. In rapidly changing contexts the creation of social capital remains important, but change requires flexibility and the diversity more often associated with weak ties than more stable, strong relationships. Moreover Burt (Burt, 1997) argues that these weak ties allow for exploitation of “structural holes” or disconnections that allow the nimble to exploit opportunities “to broker the flow of information between people and control the form of projects that bring together people from opposite sides of the hole”( p 340). Thus creating personal and community opportunities to create knowledge and wealth.

6. Lifelong learning Skills Development

6.1. Rather than immersion in full time study for a few pre-professional years of postsecondary education, it is argued that learners need to develop skills, attitudes and connections that will afford their participation in many forms of learning throughout their lives.

6.2. Networks, however persist and can be used as the basis of lifelong and professional education and learning as long as the participants remain in networked relationship. Further, networks with participants from professional practice and pre-professional students serve to connect the often theoretical study of the classroom with the everyday problems and challenges of real life

6.3. The capacity to add value and gain recognition within a network also serves students when they complete their studies

6.4. Networks afford opportunities for learners to associate, negotiate, plan and execute projects, on a global scale with other learners

6.5. Although more commonly associated with informal and non-formal learning, networks offer flexibility, exposure and social building that warrant more serious consideration for the adoption of network models in formal education

6.6. Learning networks however are not defined as much by a shared location or description of work, but rather by an individual’s need for task performance, learning, advice or interpersonal support

7. Networking Tools

7.1. Networking tools must allow users to find each other.

7.2. As importantly network members discover each other though their comments and contributions to network discussions and resource collections.

8. Network Privacy

8.1. . In a 2005 study at Carnegie Melon University of over 4,000 students registered on Facebook, Gross, Acquisti, & Heinz, found “only a small number of members change the default privacy preferences, which are set to maximize the visibility of users profiles”

8.2. In a 2007 qualitative study of Facebook users Strater and Richter found that “”While users do not underestimate the privacy threats of online disclosures, they do misjudge the extent, activity, and accessibility of their social networks.”

9. Networked learning activities

9.1. There are many learning activities that can be imported from familiar group contexts or developed based on the unique affordances of networked learning

9.2. These less homogenous contributions add authenticity and divergence of opinion that is often the basis for enhanced motivation and learning. Networks can be used effectively to expand learning beyond course-based groups.

9.3. Data collected, shared and analyzed in global contexts creates an expanded context that is inherently more valuable, fascinating and motivating then similar activities engaged on in only a local context.

10. Disruptive Networks

10.1. As more open and freely available educational resources become available the monopoly of formal institutions over content of learning is weakened.

10.2. Similarly, as learners are able to connect with each other without mediation by employees of a formal educational institution they gain capacity to collaborate, share, stimulate and support individual cooperative and collaborative forms of informal learning

10.3. Networked informal learning acts as profoundly disruptive technology to formal education institutions. Christensen described disruptive, as opposed to sustaining technologies as those that are “typically cheaper, simpler, smaller, and, frequently, more convenient to use.” (Christensen, 1997) p. xv).

10.4. the ubiquitous access to content, fellow learners and automated agent assistants (Anderson & Whitelock, 2004) greatly increases both the efficacy and the convenience of informal networked learning.

10.5. New Idea