Virtual Neighborhoods Engineering of Online Groups

Presentation Transcript

Virtual Neighborhoods Architecture of Online Communities Reuven Aviv Zippy Erlich Gilad Ravid gilad@ravid.org http://www.ravid.org/gilad

Agenda Introduction Design, Mechanisms, Architecture Method Results

Design of system instruments Social Interdependence hypothesis Matching the expectations of system development speculations Architecture Content Analysis Network factual examination of Markov models Collaborative Knowledge development

Global SNA Macro Cohesiveness Equivalence (part bunches) Power of on-screen characters Range of impact Brokerages Local SNA Micro Statistical Dyads and ternions SNA perspectives Aviv, R., Erlich, Z., Ravid, G., & Geva, A. (2003). Arrange Analysis of Knowledge Construction in Asynchronous Learning Networks. Diary of Asynchronous Learning Networks

The Social Capital Mechanism Hunt for Knowledge (social capital) Using productive communications E.g. crossing over others Community works with communicate medium: Most proficient association: No cooperations Passive individuals (Lurkers)

Cognitive adjust Emergence of transitive ternions cohesiveness clubs Creation of information support

The engineering of a system can be portrays as far as three segments at least one relations are the crucial paste between the performers A parcel of the on-screen characters and the relations into 2 level chain of command of gatherings of on-screen characters An arrangement of instruments molding the relations to the formation of the area

connect In star Mutual dyad Mix star Out star Virtual Neighborhoods Transitive set of three Cyclic group of three

Method of Analysis Reveal Architectural Components Identify Relevant Theories Identify Mechanisms

Method Analyze the recorded responsiveness information of two online discussions of learners with various outline

Example: Two Communities 16 weeks every; 19, 18 members Parts of Open U "Business Ethics" Course Team people group Designed for Knowledge Construction Tested emphatically by Content Analysis Forum Community Designed for support by Q & A

Social Capital & Transaction Costs Burt 1992, 2002 Bridge over Holes with insignificant cost Few single connections connection <0 Supported for both systems

Collective activity Coleman, 1973, 1986; Marwell & Oliver 1993; Fulk et al. 1996 Inducements to contribute under companion weight Respond to a few others If huge thickness & centralization & estimate then out star > 0 Supported for group arrange. Not upheld for discussion arrange in light of the fact that condition in not satisfied

Exchange Willer & Skvoretz, 1997; Hommans, 1958 Exchange assets straightforwardly, contingent upon accomplice & organize status Tendency to respond to asset promising accomplices commonality > 0 Not bolstered for group arrange on the grounds that there are no a-cloister asset promising on-screen characters upheld for Forum arrange in light of the fact that Tutor is a-convent asset promising performing artists

Generalized trade Bearman, 1997 Exchange assets by means of arbiters, contingent upon accomplice & organize states Tendency to react consistently to asset promising accomplice cyclicity > 0 Not bolstered in both systems. Likely in light of the fact that no requirement for data trade through middle people

Contagion Exposure Burt 1980; Contractor et al., 1990 Leading to social impact & constraint in states of mind, information & conduct Respond to same as other comparable performers Out star > 0; in star > 0; blended star >0; transitivity >0 Not upheld in both systems. Most likely in light of the fact that infection procedure couldn't create in the short lifetime of systems

Cognitive Consistency Heider 1958; Festinger, 1957; Cartwright et al., 1956 Drive for adjust in perceptions Respond by means of a few ways transitivity > 0 Supported in group systems. Not upheld in the discussion arrange. In both systems this is because of their plans

Uncertainty lessening Berger 1987 Reduce vulnerability by picking up Attract reactions from a few others In star > 0 Not bolstered in both systems. In the gathering system the guide cleared up all instabilities

Exogenous elements Residual individual propensities o react or trigger just to on-screen characters with pre relegated parts For understudies (1) resp =0; (2) trigg =0; For mentor (3) resp >0; (4) trigg >0 1,2 bolstered for both systems; 3 un upheld for group organize, bolstered for discussion arrange; 4 un bolstered for both systems

Thank You Questions? Remarks? Comments ?