14 views

Uploaded by Richard Schwier

- Al-Khatib's Combinatoric Theory
- 844F8d01
- Fostering Theoretical Thinking in Undergraduate Classes
- Lemish N Article
- CS1004 DataMining Unit 4 Notes
- Project Management
- Bayesian Network Based Modeling and Reliability Analysis of Quantum Cellular
- Methodology 1
- research critique- ed psych fall 2014
- pg8909
- 2. BRM Theoritical Framework Mod
- Standford Mental Health Studies - The fourteen primitive actions.pdf
- Itinerant Philosophy: On Alphonso Lingis
- Networks to Troubleshooting Distillation Columns
- cause and effect esaygw5_unit6.pdf
- Debatabase
- Hsiang-Ke_Chao,_Julian_Reiss_eds._Philosophy_of_Science_in_Practice_Nancy_Cartwright_and_the_Nature_of_Scientific_Reasoning.pdf
- A Survey on Soil Data Mining
- Darwin - The Next Million Years (How to Kill Off Excess Population) (1953)
- 111

You are on page 1of 10

Richard A. Schwier

Ben K. Daniel

University of Saskatchewan

Abstract

This paper describes a variety of methods, techniques and procedures combined to determine

whether an online learning community exists, to isolate its constituent characteristics and understand

interactions among them, and build a dynamic model of an online learning community. It presents analysis

of data from a three-year research program on virtual learning communities, including user perceptions of

community (sense of community indices); interaction analysis (density, intensity, reciprocity) content

analysis (transcripts, interviews, and focus groups), paired-comparison analysis (Thurstone scaling) and

community modeling techniques (Bayesian Belief Network analysis).

Introduction

This paper describes a set of approaches used to measure and understand the characteristics of community

discussed in greater detail in Schwier and Daniel (2007). The categories of analysis included identifying a sense of

community, isolating characteristics of community, comparing characteristics of community, and building a

dynamic Bayesian Belief Network Model of a community. The procedures of the analysis involved eliciting

summative judgments by participants, identifying variables constituting a virtual learning community and making

paired comparison to determine the relative importance of the various characteristics. Finally, we used the data to

construct a computational model from the data—one that not only represents the interrelationships among variables,

but that can also be used to project the effect on the community when its constituent elements' values are changed as

a results of new evidence. This paper presents in the general the key results of the studies undertaken. For detailed

description of the studies and methods employed and the findings see Schwier and Daniel (2007).

Research Context

Our analyses draw on data generated over three years of online communication among groups of graduate

students in Educational Communications and Technology as they participated in seminars on the foundations of

educational technology and instructional design. Each offering of the classes spanned an entire semester or academic

year. The classes were small graduate seminars with enrolments from six to thirteen students, and each class met

primarily online, but with monthly group meetings. While most students were able to attend the group meetings

regularly, every class cohort had members who participated exclusively or mostly from a distance. Given the

blended nature of all of the classes, we confine our conclusions to similar environments, and emphasize that these

results cannot be generalized to environments that are entirely online, or entirely face-to-face. However, the methods

employed in the studies can be extended to study similar learning environments. Measures employed to determine

whether a community existed among the students include; content analysis, focus groups, and interviews to ascertain

sense of a community index and intensity of interaction; paired comparison using Thurstone scaling to determine

relative importance of the identified characteristics of virtual learning communities; and Bayesian Belief Network

for building a dynamic computational model and evidence-based scenarios to query and update the model.

In gross sense, to determine whether a community existed, we employed the "Sense of Community Index

(SCI)" (Chavis, undated), a classic instrument employed broadly in the field of community psychology (Chavis &

Wandersman 1990; Chipuer & Pretty, 1999; Obst & White, 2004). The Sense of Community Index (SCI) measures

397

an individual's psychological sense of community. We administered the SCI at the beginning and end of a year-long

course, and ran a simple T-test on the data to see if there was any change in measures of the group's sense of

community by the end of the course. The T-test results suggested a significant positive growth in the sense of

community scores from the beginning to the end of the course (p< .01). Though, the reliability of SCI is often

questionable, despite its long use, we anticipated using the Classroom Community Scale (CCS) proposed by Rovai

and Jordan (2004). The classroom community scale is similar in format and intent to the SCI, but it boasts a higher

reliability estimate for the full scale (Chronbach's alpha = .93) and the subscales (connectedness = .92; learning =

.87), partially attributable to the higher number of items on the scale.

Fahy, Crawford and Ally (2001) proposed several useful measures of describing interaction collectively called

Transcript Analysis Tool (TAT). The TAT includes methods of measuring density, intensity and persistence of

interactions in transcripts of online discussions. We drew on their recommendations and extended some of them to

analyze interactions in our data, particularly transcripts of asynchronous discussions. We explored how individuals

in the class were connected to each other using density as measurement proxy. Fahy, Crawford and Ally's (2001)

defined density as "the ratio of the actual number of connections observed, to the total potential number of possible

connections." Given by the formula: Density = 2a/N (N-1), where "a" is the number of observed interactions

between participants, and "N" is the total number of participants. Density is a measure of how connected

individuals are to others in a group, and the idea is that a higher degree of connection is a positive indicator of

community.

For our own calculations, we included only peripheral (voluntary or additional) communications between

people by eliminating all instances of required postings and responses. We felt that peripheral interaction would

provide a stronger measure of community, given that required communications among students might inflate the

actual density value. In the case of one of our groups, we discovered a density ratio of .78, suggesting that 78% of

the possible connections were made. Density = 2(122)/13(12) = .782. Although there are no baseline data to make

judgments about the existence of community, this level of density did seem to suggest a strong level of connection

among participants.

Fahy, Crawford and Ally also recommend considering measures of intensity to determine whether participants

are authentically engaged with each other, not merely carrying out their responsibilities in a course. They argue that

it is a useful measure of involvement because it involves measures of persistence and dedication to being connected

to others in the group. One measure of intensity is "levels of participation," or the degree to which the number of

postings observed in a group exceed the number of required postings. In this case, students were required to make

490 postings as part of the course requirements, and they actually made 858 postings, yielding a level of

participation ratio of 1.75. Another important measure for the purpose of understanding community was Fahy,

Crawford and Ally's "S-R ratio", a formula to measure the parity of communication among participants. We referred

to this as a measure of "reciprocity", and we felt that truly engaged groups who form communities will exhibit high

degrees of reciprocity. Details of our analysis are reported in Schwier and Daniel (2007).

Building on previous model of virtual learning community (see Schwier, 2001), we had identified fourteen

characteristics of community that grew out of the theoretical model, from the analysis of interactions among

participants, from a content analysis of transcripts of communication among community participants, and from

interviews and focus groups. While the process to this point was disciplined at each step, the intention was to draw

out characteristics that might be important in formal virtual learning communities; the purpose was not to validate or

compare the relative significance of any of the characteristics. The next step in the process was to try to determine

the relative importance of the characteristics that were drawn from these various sources. We had a good sense of

what were many of the characteristics that comprised the communities we observed, but we did not have any reliable

information about which characteristics were important, which were trivial, and which might be more important than

others. Figure 1 presents the characteristics observed for the definitions of the variables (see Schwier & Daniel,

2007)

398

Figure 1. Characteristics of a virtual learning community (Schwier, in press)

To address this question, we developed a paired-comparison treatment that asked participants to compare each

characteristic of a VLC to every other characteristic and choose the characteristic they believed was more important

to the community. Twenty-three students who had completed their coursework volunteered to participate in the

study. The fourteen characteristics were compared against each other, resulting in 91 paired-comparisons in the

treatment. Authorware Professional™ was used to develop the treatment, and the treatment was administered on

Windows-based PC workstations. In the design of the treatment, care was taken to avoid response bias and

contamination from fatigue by presenting each pair in random order and by alternating the upper-lower orientation

of each characteristic in relation to the characteristic against which it was being compared. After completing the

comparisons, participants were asked to describe how they made their decisions generally, and if there were factors

that influenced their decisions.

Thurstone Analysis

In order to discriminate among the variables, Schwier & Daniel (2007) developed a paired-comparison

treatment that required participants to compare each characteristic of a VLC to every other characteristic and choose

the characteristic they believed was more important to the community. This was based on Thurstone's method of

paired comparisons, a method of analysis that generates a scale ranking and scale points among variables that can be

used to plot a visual representation of distances between and among variables.

Thurstone (1927) postulated that for each of the items being compared and among all subjects, a preference

will exist, and that for each item the preference will be distributed normally around that item's most frequent or

modal response. A person's preference for each item versus every other item is obtained, and the more people that

select one item of a pair over the other item, the greater the preference for, or perceived importance of, that item, and

thus the greater its scale weight. Thurstone's Law of Comparative Judgment circumvents potential ceiling effect

problems by forcing individuals to rank items two at a time rather than all at once (Manitoba Centre for Health

Policy, 2005). Given the results of all possible paired comparisons of the variables under study, scale values can be

plotted on a line to provide a graphic illustration of the relative value of each variable, represented by its relative

distance from the other variables (the greater the distance between any two variables on the scale, the greater the

differences between those two variables).

The scale is descriptive, and there are no post-hoc tests available to identify significant differences among

variables. But the scale values provide a convenient metric for assigning initial weights to variables in modeling

exercises. In the study of the fundamental variables of virtual learning communities, Schwier and Daniel (2007),

compared each VLC characteristic with the others, following procedures outlined by Misanchuk (1988). The data

were then converted into a line drawing that depicted differences between elements along a line. Greater differences

399

were shown spatially as larger distances between points on the line. The outcome of the comparison and the ranking

of the variables are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Thurstone Scale Rankings and Scale Points for Each of the Fourteen VLC Characteristics.

Trust 1 0.7341

Learning 2 0.5806

Participation 3 0.3182

Mutuality 4 0.2671

Intensity 5 0.2425

Social Protocols 6 0.1852

Reflection 7 0.1523

Autonomy 8 0.0155

Awareness 9 -0.0785

Identity 10 -0.1939

Future 11 -0.2474

Technology 12 -0.5033

Historicity 13 -0.7309

Plurality 14 -0.7701

As a result of this analysis, we were able to obtain measures that could be used to understand the association

and interplay of community characteristics in a VLC, and we could also use the Thurstone Scale points to assign

weights to these characteristics when we attempted to construct a dynamic model of virtual learning communities.

Reviewing the results, it is apparent that there are at least three clusters of characteristics. Trust and learning were

considered by the participants to be the most important characteristics of a VLC. A large cluster of characteristics

gathered around the mean scale point, and while they differed from each other, we treated them as a group because

of their central position relative to the other points. Technology, historicity and plurality were ascribed much lower

status than the other characteristics, and one might argue as a result that they should be eliminated from the model

entirely. After reviewing comments, it was apparent that even those characteristics that were positioned at the low

end of the Thurstone scale still had a role to play in the construction of community, however marginal that influence

might be.

We were also reluctant to eliminate characteristics at this point in the research because we are still gathering

primary data from new groups. Our confidence in the relative positions of these characteristics, and ultimately our

judgments about their inclusion in a model of VLC, will grow as our analysis continues. At what point will we be

satisfied that we've identified the important characteristics and measured their relative importance? Probably never,

given that VLCs are dynamic environments that are also situated in particular learning contexts. But we will

continue to gather data to develop and refine models, and our tools and the sophistication of our observations will

mature over time too.

Bayesian networks, Bayesian models or Bayesian belief networks (BBNs) can be classified as part of the

probabilistic graphical model family. Graphical models provide an elegant and mathematically sound approach to

represent uncertainty. BBN approach combines advances in graph theory and probability. BBNs are graphs

composed of nodes and directional arrows (Pearl 1988). Nodes in BBNs represent variables and directed edges

(arrows) between pairs of nodes indicate relationships between variables. The nodes in a BBN are usually drawn as

circles or ovals. Further, BBNs offer a mathematically rigorous way to model a complex environment that is

flexible, able to mature as knowledge about the system grows, and computationally efficient (Druzdzel & Gaag,

2000; Rusell & Norvig, 1995).

Bayesian networks can be used to model probabilistic relationships among variables. In some cases, their

graphical structure can be loosely interpreted as the result of direct causal dependencies between variables. In

domains with many causal relations, such as in medical diagnosis (symptoms cause diseases), human experts are

usually able to express their domain knowledge in the graphical structure of the network. For example, in a model

400

for medical diagnosis, the parameters of the network are the conditional probabilities of effects given the state of

their direct causes.

Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) techniques are increasingly being used for understanding and simulating

computational models of complex social systems. BBN models enable reasoning when there is uncertainty (Pearl,

1998). They combine the advantages of an intuitive visual representation with a sound mathematical basis in

Bayesian probability. The motivation to build the Bayesian model of a virtual learning community is to be able to

perform a number of simulations and observe the influence of variables in the model with the goal of determining

and understanding the relationships among these variables that are critical to learning in communities.

The first step in building a BBN is to identify key variables that represent a domain (Druzdzel & Gaag, 2000;

Pearl, 1988; Rusell & Norvig, 1995). The variables identified in our model are drawn from an analysis of online

transcripts, interviews and email traffic that were subjected to grounded theory analysis, and the identified variables

were then subjected to a Thurstone analysis to identify their relative weights. The motivation to build the Bayesian

model of a virtual learning community is to be able to perform a number of simulations and observe the influence of

variables in the network with the goal of determining and understanding those variables that are critical to virtual

learning communities as well as their interactions in the processes of learning. In building the model, once variables

were identified, the second step involved mapping the variables into a graph (see Figure 2) based upon coherent

qualitative reasoning.

Druzdzel and Henrion (1993) proposed a transformation of a causal Bayesian network into a qualitative

probabilistic network (QPN), in which the relation between two adjacent nodes is denoted as positive (+), negative (-),

null (0) or unknown (?); there are also relations that involve more than two nodes, such as positive or negative synergies.

The main advantage of QPN's is that they simplify the construction of models, because they do not require the elicitation

of numerical parameters; as a consequence, their main disadvantage is the lack of precision in the results, especially

because very often the combination of "positive" and "negative" influences leads to "unknown" relations. The motivation

for this approach is based on the fact that people usually reason in qualitative terms.

In our case, we used the Thurstone analysis as a starting point to identify relative positions of variables of

virtual communities, and we then used qualitative reasoning to subjectively identify those variables that are of

interest and influence in the model and isolate those that are less likely to have an impact on the overall performance

of the model. We caution the reader that our reasoning is based on our teaching and research experience into virtual

learning environments, and it may contain epistemological, contextual and personal bias. However, the initial

precision of the relationships among variables is less important to developing a model than is the identification of

key variables that was accomplished by using the grounded theory approach mentioned earlier. Precision is built by

tuning the model and observing how variables interact over time and across contexts in the BBN. In other words, a

BBN is built iteratively, and as the number of iterations increase, the model is tuned to render an increasingly

accurate network of relationships among key variables

In this study, we used qualitative reasoning to infer causal relationships among the variables identified in the

study, resulting in relationships among variables that could be charted. For instance one can qualitatively and

inductively reason that in virtual learning communities, participation and learning are essentially variables whose

interactions are mediated by another technology as another variable, (i.e., it is hard to imagine learning online

without any participation and equally participation is often mediated by technology), and therefore, technology is

assigned to be a parent of participation. Similarly, participation can influence awareness in various ways, which in

turn can lead to the development of trusting relationships. Since awareness can contribute to trust and distrust, trust

is set to be a child of awareness.

Furthermore, one can reason that technology influences awareness in different ways. For example, imagine a

learning environment in which each individual has a profile (electronic portfolio) and the information is made

available to others in the community; this can create sense of awareness about who is who, or who knows what, in

that community. Similarly, technology may influence intensity in a weak positive manner. For example, poor

technology might have negative outcomes on engagement. In other words, people might not be willing to use

technology that does not work well for them, or they find awkward to use.

Extending this type of qualitative reasoning resulted in the BBN shown in Figure 2. In the model, those nodes

that contribute to causality align themselves in “parent” to “child” relationships, where parent nodes are causes and

child nodes are effects. For example, trust is the child of mutuality; awareness and intensity, which are in turn

children of participation and technology (see Figure 2). The criterion for determining causality among the variables

is a reflection of our qualitative reasoning process (soft data), which can be validated using empirical evidence (hard

data).

401

Figure 2. BBN representation of relationships among virtual learning community variables.

The third step in building the model involved assigning initial probabilities to the network. In general, BBN

initial probabilities can be obtained from domain experts, secondary statistics or they can be taken from observations

and subjective intuition. It is also possible that initial probabilities can be learned from raw data. In addition to

learning prior probabilities, it is sometimes necessary to examine the structure of the network. In our case, the initial

probabilities were obtained using approached discussed in Daniel, Zapata-Revera and McCalla (2003) and the

structure and the degree and strength of influence among the variables was determined by examining the distances

between the variables of virtual learning communities along the Thurstone Scale. This approach enabled us to

cluster those variables that were closely aligned on the Thurstone scale and use weighted threshold values (Daniel,

McCalla, & Schwier, 2005) to generate the conditional probability table. The relationships and the degree of

influence among the variables were further described qualitatively. In the results of Thurstone scaling, those

variables that cluster around the mean scale point was observed were given high degree of influence.

The initial conditional probabilities were generated by examining qualitative descriptions of the influence

between two or more variables and the strength of their relationships in the model (Daniel, Zapata-Rivera, McCalla,

2003; Daniel, McCalla, & Schwier, 2005). Each probability describes the strength of relationship. For instance,

various degrees of influence among variables are represented in the model by the letters S (strong), M (medium),

and W (weak). The signs + and - represent positive and negative relationships. The elicitation of the initial

probability approach for the variables was based on the approach discussed in Daniel, Zapata-Revera and McCalla

(2003), but the strengths of the relationships and the influence of each variable was based on the results of the

Thurstone scaling and the relative positioning of each variables along the scale. For instance, technology was ranked

to be last and so it carries a threshold probability value of 0.6 and the symbol weak (W+) was assigned to it. The

sign means that there is some kind of influence, but because of its low ranking along the scale, the influence is a

weak one.

The probability values were obtained by adding weights to the values of the variables depending on the number

of parents and the strength of the relationship between particular parents and children. For example, if there are

positive relationships between two variables, the weights associated with each degree of influence are determined by

establishing a threshold value associated with each degree of influence. The threshold values correspond to the

highest probability value that a child could reach under a certain degree of influence from its parents, i.e. assuming

that Participation and Technology have positive and strong relationships with Awareness, evidence of good

technology and high participation will result into a conditional probability value of 0.98 (i.e., Awareness=Exist).

This value is obtained by subtracting a base value (1 / number of parents--0.5 in this case with two parents) from the

threshold value associated to the degree of influence (i.e., threshold value for strong = 0.98) and dividing the result

by the number of parents (i.e., (0.98 - 0.5) / 2 = 0.24). Table 3 lists threshold values and weights used in this

402

example. The value α = 0.02 leaves some room for uncertainty when considering evidence coming from positive

and strong relationships.

Strong 1-α = 1 - 0.02 = 0.98 (0.98-0.5) / 2 = 0.48 / 2 = 0.24

Medium 0.8 (0.8-0.5) / 2 =0.3 / 2 = 0.15

Weak 0.6 (0.6-0.5) / 2 =0.1 / 2 = 0.05

This assumes that participation and technology have positive strong relationships with awareness and there is

evidence of positive participation and technology in a particular community. Given these assumptions, weights will

be added to the conditional probability table of awareness every time participation = high or technology = good. For

example, the conditional probability value associated with awareness given that there is evidence of participation =

high and technology = good is 0.98. This value is obtained by adding to the base value the weights associated with

participation and technology (0.24 each). Table 4 shows a complete conditional probability table for this example.

Table 3. An example of conditional probability table for two parents with strong, positive relationships

Technology Good Bad Good Bad

Awareness Exists 0.98 0.74 0.74 0.5

Awareness Does Not Exist 0.02 0.26 0.26 0.5

The calculation of the various states of the relationships among the three variables (awareness, participation and

technology), and their corresponding values used in Table 3. Given below:

P (Awareness= Exist | Participation= high & Technology= Good) = 0.5 + 0.24 + 0.24 = 0.98

P (Awareness= DoesNotExist| Participation= high & Technology= Good) = 1 - 0.98 = 0.02

P (Awareness= DoesNotExist | Participation=High & Technology= Bad) = 1 - 0.74 = 0.26

P (Awareness= Exist| Participation= Low & Technology= Good) = 0.5 + 0.24 = 0.74

P (Awareness= DoesNotExist | Participation= Low & Technology= Good) = 1 - 0.74 =0.26

Querying a BBN refers to the process of updating the conditional probability table and making inferences based

on new evidence. One way of updating a BBN is to develop a detailed number of scenarios that can be used to query

the model. A scenario refers to a written synopsis of inferences drawn from observed phenomenon or empirical data.

Druzdzel and Henrion (1993) described a scenario as an assignment of values to those variables in Bayesian network

which are relevant for a certain conclusion, ordered in such a way that they form a coherent story—a causal story

which is compatible with the evidence of the story. The use of scenarios in Bayesian network is drawn from

psychological research (Pennington & Hastie, 1988). This research shows that humans tend to interpret and explain

any social situation by weighing up the most credible stories that include hypotheses to test and understand social

phenomena. In Bayesian terms a hypothesis is the assignment of a value to a discrete variable or group of variables.

Although a scenario can describe all of the nodes a model, it is more reasonable to include only the nodes relevant

for a certain situation. If there is a certain focal hypothesis, say for instance H, selected by the user, the relevant

nodes are those that affect the posterior probability of H given the observed evidence e. Otherwise, the relevant

nodes are all those whose probabilities depend on e. The explanation of the model therefore, consists of showing the

evidence (i.e., the scenarios that are most compatible with the hypothesis and those that are incompatible with the

hypothesis.

403

Furthermore, updating a BBN using scenarios is an attempt to understand the significance of various

relationships among variables in a network. Based on the results of Thurstone scaling we have observed a large

cluster of variables around the mean scale point. These were then chosen to construct the Bayesian Belief network.

Although, the variables obtained in the earlier analysis can be treated as a group because of their central position

relative to the other points, it is difficult to measure their individual importance relative to others in the same cluster

or in other clusters in the VLC model. We build simple scenarios to further infer their relative influence and

significance to learning within the network. The approach described in table 3 uses both qualitative and quantitative

data in building the Bayesian Network to model imprecise and nebulous domains (Daniel, Zapata-Revera &

McCalla, 2003). In addition, the probability distribution enables us to query the model and observe changes as they

propagate to generate new posterior probability values (P), which we can then use to make logical inferences about

the state of the model from changes in its variables. For example, imagine a community where there is reasonably

high level of participation among individuals (e.g., p=0.98), and a high presence of mutuality, implying learners are

constantly engaged in reciprocal relationships through exchanging messages, sharing experiences, stories,

information and knowledge. Querying the model (presented in figure 2) with this scenario reveals increased learning

with a posterior probability value of P (l=0.763).

Another scenario we employed to tune the model involved a formal virtual learning community in which an

effective level of participation guided by explicit social protocols was observed. In addition, individuals were

constantly engaged in open discourse (mutuality), and the issues were addressed in both depth and breadth

(intensity). Further, assuming that there is a high intensity in discourse encouraged individuals to reflect deeply on

the issues being discussed. Results of querying the model using this scenario revealed a higher probability of

learning p (l=0.779) with a significant difference of 0.016 compared to the probability of learning in the presence of

effective participation and mutuality alone. This result is intuitively appealing, given interview data that suggested

that a combination of these factors encouraged depth in the discussion and in learning (Schwier & Daniel, 2006).

In practice virtual learning communities should encourage freedom of expression, mutual respect and they

should value diversity. Building on the notion of individual freedom in a virtual learning community, we were

interested in observing the impact of autonomy on trust and learning, given effective participation and good

technology. Autonomy seems to be very influential; the network revealed higher probability of trust P (t=0.924) and

correspondingly high probability of learning P (l=0.794) when autonomy was elevated.

Given the central importance of trust as a prerequisite condition of learning, we were interested in

understanding the impact of all the variables on trust and learning. In this scenario all the variables in the first layer

(technology and participation) and second layer (mutuality, intensity, social protocols, reflection, autonomy and

awareness) in the model were set to their highest probability values. This scenario increased the values of posterior

probabilities of trust (P: (t=0.944) and learning (P: l=0.810). This result suggests that the variables in the network

can collectively have considerable and yet varying effects on trust and learning, depending on differing scenarios.

Although the results of the Thurstone analysis ranks trust to be the most important variable in a virtual learning

community, our analysis suggests that when trust is associated directly with learning, but without the positive

influence of its parent variables (mutuality, intensity, social protocols, reflection, autonomy and awareness), the

probability of learning remains low P (l=0.629). This result holds even in the presence of good technology and

effective participation. Previous research has emphasized the value of trust in enhancing the sense of a community.

Prusak and Cohen (2001) suggested that trust enables people to work together, collaborate, and smoothly exchange

information and share knowledge without time wasted on negotiation and conflict. In virtual learning communities

however, we argue that without mutuality, intensity, social protocols, reflection, and awareness; the impact of trust

on learning may be minimal.

Based on different experiences, experts’ knowledge, intuition and hunches, a large number of scenarios can be

developed to query this model. Querying the model using logical scenarios, whether based on empirical data or

experts’ experiences, offers a disciplined method of examining the cumulative effect of making changes anywhere

in the network and also for speculating about how any particular change can alter the values of related variables. The

BBN is still, at its core, a tool for speculation, but over time and as data are added to inform the variables and their

interrelationships, the network can be "tuned" to provide robust and precise ways to make decisions about how to

support learning in virtual learning communities

404

Conclusions

The most important point in this paper is not the specific methods we chose to perform the analyses. A host of

other tools are available to researchers, and they can be used to generate related but different interpretive angles on

data (e.g., social network analysis tools). Of greater significance is that the methods flow from definition to analysis

to prediction, so they have some intuitive and practical appeal. We recognize that we are at the beginning of

learning about how to understand online learning communities, and so we make no claims that these methods

represent a definitive set of tools for that job, but we think that considering the full cycle from definition to modeling

is important. Much of the research to date that examines online learning communities looks closely at only a few

variables, and much of the literature is highly speculative. We think that there is a need to systematically isolate

features of communities, try to determine their relative importance, and then build models that can be used to test

inferences in new environments and inform the science of design in online learning.

References

Chavis, D. M. & Wandersman A. (1990) Sense of community in the urban environment, A catalyst for participation

and community development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 55-81.

Chavis, D.M. (undated). The sense of community index. Retreived August 31, 2005 from

http://www.capablecommunity.com/pubs/SCIndex.PDF

Chipuer, H.M., & Pretty, G.M.H. (1999). A review of the sense of community index. Journal of Community

Psychology, 27, 246-658.

Daniel, B.K., McCalla, G.I., & Schwier, R.A. (2005). Data mining and modeling social capital in virtual learning

communities. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education,

Amsterdam, 18-22 July, 2000-208

Daniel, B.K., Zapata-Rivera, D. J., & McCalla, G. I. (2003). A Bayesian computational model of social capital in

virtual communities. In M. Huysman, E. Wenger, & Wulf, V. (eds), Communities and technologies

(pp.287-305). London: Kluwer.

Druzdzel, M.J., & Gaag, L. C (2000). Building probabilistic networks: "Where do the numbers come from?" Guest

editor's introduction. Data Engineering, 12(4), 481-486

Druzdzel, M.J., & Henrion, M. (1993). Efficient reasoning in qualitative probabilistic networks. Proceedings of the

11th Annual Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-93), Washington, D.C., pp. 548-553.

Fahy, P.J., Crawford, G., Ally, M., Cookson, P., Keller, V. and Prosser, F. (2000). The development of testing of a

tool for computer-mediated conferencing transcripts. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 46 (1), 85-

88.

Manitoba Centre for Health Policy (2005). The Thurstone manual. Retrieved August 31, 2005 from

http://www.umanitoba.ca/centres/mchp/concept/thurstone/background.shtml.

Misanchuk, E.R. (1988). Step-by-step procedure for constructing a Thurstone Scale. Annual Management Program

of the Canadian Association for University Continuing Education, Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Obst, P.L., & White, K.M. (2004). Revisiting the sense of community index: A confirmatory factor analysis. Journal

of Community Psychology, 32(6), 691-705.

Pearl, J. (1988). Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: Networks of plausible inference. San Mateo, CA:

Morgan Kaufmann.

Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1988). Explanation-based decision making: effects of memory structure on judgment.

Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(3), 521-533.

Prusak, L., & Cohen, D. (2001). In good company: How social capital makes organizations work. Boston, MA:

Harvard Business School Press.

Rovai, A.P., & Jordan H.M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with

traditional and fully online graduate courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance

Learning, August, 2004. Retrieved April 26, 2005 from http://www.irrodl.org/content/v5.2/rovai-

jordan.html.

Russell, S. & Norvig, P. (1995). Solution manual for "artificial intelligence: a modern approach." Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Schwier, R.A. (2001). Catalysts, emphases and elements of virtual learning communities: Implications for research

and practice. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(1), 5-18.

405

Schwier, R.A. (in press). A typology of catalysts, emphases and elements of virtual learning communities. In R.

Luppicini (Ed.), Trends in distance education: A focus on communities of learning. Greenwich, CT:

Information Age Publishing.

Schwier, R.A., & Daniel, B.K. (2007). Did we become a community? Multiple methods for identifying community

and its constituent elements in formal online learning environments. In N. Lambropoulos, & P. Zaphiris

(Eds.), User- evaluation and online communities (pp. 29-53). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.

Thurstone, L.L. (1927). A law of comparative judgement. Psychological Review, 34, 273-286.

406

- Al-Khatib's Combinatoric TheoryUploaded byazraq68
- 844F8d01Uploaded byNaila Khan
- Fostering Theoretical Thinking in Undergraduate ClassesUploaded byLeonardo Aguilar Moreno
- Lemish N ArticleUploaded bySCASPEE
- CS1004 DataMining Unit 4 NotesUploaded bysridharanc23
- Project ManagementUploaded byykhamidi3889
- Bayesian Network Based Modeling and Reliability Analysis of Quantum CellularUploaded byIAEME Publication
- Methodology 1Uploaded byRal Lci
- research critique- ed psych fall 2014Uploaded byapi-270962664
- pg8909Uploaded byGdsrfge
- 2. BRM Theoritical Framework ModUploaded bytushar0909
- Standford Mental Health Studies - The fourteen primitive actions.pdfUploaded byPablo Azevedo
- Itinerant Philosophy: On Alphonso LingisUploaded byEileen A. Fradenburg Joy
- Networks to Troubleshooting Distillation ColumnsUploaded byJeremy Hernandez
- cause and effect esaygw5_unit6.pdfUploaded byHien Le
- DebatabaseUploaded byMukhlisa Anvarova
- Hsiang-Ke_Chao,_Julian_Reiss_eds._Philosophy_of_Science_in_Practice_Nancy_Cartwright_and_the_Nature_of_Scientific_Reasoning.pdfUploaded byBertnardo
- A Survey on Soil Data MiningUploaded byamitarya514
- Darwin - The Next Million Years (How to Kill Off Excess Population) (1953)Uploaded byuncleretro
- 111Uploaded byJeLo ReaNdelar
- the_man_and_the_universeUploaded bydragosbalaniuc
- unit planUploaded byapi-356713560
- Lewis on CausationUploaded byScott Walsh
- Web Causation SpiderUploaded byAlexis Vidal
- Herding and social pressure in trading tasks: a behavioural analysisUploaded by18462
- WEEK 9 Young (2002)Uploaded byderceg
- 348556750-APPLIED-INQUIRIES-INVESTIGATIONS-AND-IMMERSIONS-pptx.pptxUploaded byGladys Degones Guiller - Maglapit
- Mechanisms Optimality and DesignUploaded byAnonymous sQ9wLhhZ
- Research ProblemUploaded bymaria
- Historical Reasoning Towards a Framework_Van DrieUploaded byMarcela Bertranine Farfán

- Focusing Educational Technology Research on Informal Learning EnvironmentsUploaded byRichard Schwier
- Pursuing the elusive metaphor of community in virtual learning environmentsUploaded byRichard Schwier
- Instructional Designer Disciplinary-Based Formation of SelfUploaded byRichard Schwier
- A Preliminary Investigation of Self-Directed Learning ActivitiesUploaded byRichard Schwier
- Anglin Chapter Abstract - Elusive Metaphors of CommunityUploaded byRichard Schwier
- Bullen & Janes Chapter Abstract: Virtual Learning Community ResearchUploaded byRichard Schwier
- Implications of a Virtual Learning Community Model for Designing Distributed Communities of Practice in Higher EducationUploaded byRichard Schwier
- Luppicini Chapter Abstract: VLC TypologyUploaded byRichard Schwier
- Patterns of Participation in Formal, Non-Formal, and Informal Online Learning EnvironmentsUploaded byRichard Schwier
- Methodological issues and solutions: Examining SDL and VLC in NFLUploaded byRichard Schwier
- Lambropoulos Chapter Abstract - VLC Research MethodsUploaded byRichard Schwier
- Research codebook for non-formal virtual learning communties, v 2.0Uploaded byRichard Schwier
- Participant engagement in a non-formal, self-directed and blended learning environmentUploaded byRichard Schwier
- A comparison of participation patterns in selected formal, non-formal, and informal online learning environmentsUploaded byRichard Schwier
- A Preliminary Consideration of Learning Processes in Virtual Learning CommunitiesUploaded byRichard Schwier
- Blended Methods for Measuring and Modeling Community in Formal Online Learning EnvironmentsUploaded byRichard Schwier
- Self-directed learning in non-formal learning communitiesUploaded byRichard Schwier
- Where is the community hiding in Web 2 0Uploaded byRichard Schwier
- Intentional and Incidental Discourse Variables in a Virtual Learning CommunityUploaded byRichard Schwier
- A Preliminary Study and Research Protocol for Investigating Sociocultural Issues in Instructional DesignUploaded byRichard Schwier
- 'the Nature of Manifest Learning in Two Virtual Learning CommunitiesUploaded byRichard Schwier
- Our First Life - Technology for Important ThingsUploaded byRichard Schwier
- Fundamental Characteristics of Formal Virtual Learning CommunitiesUploaded byRichard Schwier
- Mining Data and Modeling Social Capital in Virtual Learning CommunitiesUploaded byRichard Schwier
- Authenticity in the Process of Learning about Instructional DesignUploaded byRichard Schwier
- The Struggle for Community and Content in Virtual Learning CommunitiesUploaded byRichard Schwier
- Going Full Circle Approaches to Investigating the Characteristics of Community in Blended Formal Learning EnvironmentsUploaded byRichard Schwier
- Bayesian Model of Social Capital in Virtual Learning Communities Process, Procedures and ChallengesUploaded byRichard Schwier
- Shaping the Metaphor of Community in Online Learning EnvironmentsUploaded byRichard Schwier
- A Preliminary Investigation of Self-Directed Learning Activities in a Non-Formal Blended Learning EnvironmentUploaded byRichard Schwier

- Contoh Justifikasi UL ThpUploaded byrf global1
- Intro RobotUploaded byManivannan Jeeva
- Assignment 2 SolutionUploaded byJacob Johnston
- Drezet-MetMaterTrans-41A-Dec-2010.PDFUploaded bySachith Praminda Rupasinghe
- rsh_qam11_tif_05.docUploaded byJay Brock
- Radome Analysis TechniquesUploaded byAlex Yang
- CountersUploaded bylakrani
- Survey on Software Data Reduction Techniques Accomplishing Bug TriageUploaded byIRJET Journal
- wuamcss08Uploaded byDavid Chang
- Halmos - Problems as Heart of mathematicsUploaded byΧάρης Φραντζικινάκης
- Algorithms & Flow ChartsUploaded bySaravana Kumar
- Chains With Fractal Dispersion LawsUploaded byhumejias
- 2Uploaded byVijay Pandit
- Planetary Gearbox Effects on Induction Machine in Wind Turbine --Modeling and AnalysisUploaded byZhang Jidong
- Mil Std 810b Notice 2Uploaded byrcktech
- 14_03-01-0019Uploaded byNirav Acharya
- Bi-Axial Bending of Combined Footing.sampleUploaded byJack Pa
- Fuel Injector characteristicsUploaded byads295
- Practice Practical 5Uploaded byparmar shyam
- Python 3 Plotting Simple GraphsUploaded byelz0rr0
- Intro Sci LabUploaded bymaxi_1987
- 12272Uploaded byharsha
- SR662Uploaded byBabulalSahu
- GBO 2009 Question PaperUploaded byRaja Panchal
- LMD ResumeUploaded byLauren
- syllabus r2013Uploaded bykarthipriya
- tesla a new futureUploaded byJafar
- 29.IJAEST Vol No 5 Issue No 2 the Estimation of Forging Load for Closed Die Forging of Axi Symmetric Job Using Computer 296 300Uploaded byiserp
- LaiLec1Uploaded byKumar
- Optimized PID Controller For pH Neutralisation ProcessUploaded byInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development - IJSRD