Key enabling success factors for learner networks

From Stellar Deliverable 1.1

Key enabling success factors for learner networks

‘The potential for learner networks seems considerable, given the range of challenges to which organisations must respond in new ways. But it is also clear that there is still a considerable gap between rhetoric - what could and should be done to build such networks - and the reality of their implementation. Much work needs to be done on understanding the challenges involved in successful operation of learner networks, and the tools with which to facilitate their development and survival’ (Bessant & Tsekouras, 2001).

The sections above have suggested that TEL-based learner networks may contribute in positive ways to the processes of learning. However, it seems that very often it is difficult to build up and maintain such networks. The TEL research community is continuously addressing why this may be so. The question for solving the cold-start and maintenance problem for such networks can be rephrased into “how can we get agents in, and how can we get them to stay?”.

Possible enabling factors, discussed below, of learner networks relate to the way a network is used by the learners and to the way a network is organised.

It is widely recognised that a ‘common’ task can help to build relationships among learners see for example (Engestrøm et al., 1999, Trentin, 2004, Wenger et al., 2002). In order to carry out a shared task, members of the network will negotiate, use and produce shared artefacts, tools and languages.

In virtual contexts the issue of identity is one of the most discussed topics (sense of identity, construction of one’s own identity, exploring who you are and who you want to be, possibility to take risks, sense of belonging, shaping personality, individual vs. group identity, group cohesion, etc.). It seems to be important to establish a safe environment in which individuals are able to construct their own identities.

Collective activity allows distribution of work, exchange of support, shared responsibility but it may also weigh more heavily on some group members than others. Methods and rules must be designed to ensure productive collaborative learning activities, possibly inspired by those proposed for co-writing environments. (See Noël & Robert (2004) for a detailed discussion of collaborative writing and tools used.)

Organising the work of a network is based on rules and procedures, which may be suggested by a network manager or – by contrast - be left up to the network itself. The network may thus be quite autonomous or be strongly guided (this relates to issues of responsibility vs. control). Monitoring the learning process, or the fulfilment of shared activities, can provide insights about how the network is growing, changing, moving.

If, on the one hand, technology allows the network to be time-and space-independent, on the other hand, synergies seem to benefit from synchronisation (people working at the same time on the same issue).

Tools used within a network can embed principles of teaching and learning, and they frame communication and the shared repertoire accordingly. These constraints should be taken into account when learners and teachers are making choices about which tools to use within a network.

Research questions include: • What sort of rules and procedures support learner networks, both in terms of keeping the network lively and active and in terms of learning? How do Web 2.0 tools affect the organisation process?

• How can we best support shifts between a central position and a distributed position? Can a formal learning situation (a course) be shifted to an informal one (the formal setting induces weak ties which can afterwards be turned by people into strong reliable networks, with reciprocity, responsibility, etc.)?

• In which ways should we balance synchronisation and asynchronisation in a learner network? How could such a balance be supported by technology?

• What network activity should we monitor? How do web.2.0 tools affect monitoring? How should monitoring data be shared with the learners and what would/could this achieve?

• What design criteria should be used for the tools aimed at supporting a network? What about the issue of “tool transparency” and the possibility offered by technology to reflect/imitate the real world? What kind of impact does this have on a leaner network?