Birds of a Feather? - Do Participants’ Hierarchical Positions activate Homophily within Communities of Learning?
•
1 gostou•1,505 visualizações
This document summarizes a study that examined whether participants' hierarchical positions within an organization activated homophily (similarity) within online communities of learning (CoL). The study analyzed social networks of 249 participants in 25 CoL during a 14-week online training program. It found no evidence of homophily based on hierarchical position in the reading networks, but saw high fluctuation in active reply networks. The document recommends scaffolding activities and facilitator guidance to decrease selective interactions and more actively engage all participants.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (19)
Destaque
Destaque (20)
Semelhante a Birds of a Feather? - Do Participants’ Hierarchical Positions activate Homophily within Communities of Learning?
Semelhante a Birds of a Feather? - Do Participants’ Hierarchical Positions activate Homophily within Communities of Learning? (20)
Mais de Martin Rehm
Mais de Martin Rehm (20)
Último
Último (20)
Birds of a Feather? - Do Participants’ Hierarchical Positions activate Homophily within Communities of Learning?
- 1. Birds of a Feather? Do Participants’ Hierarchical Positions activate Homophily within Communities of Learning? Dr. Martin Rehm, Prof. Wim Gijselaers, Prof. Mien Segers 15th Biennial EARLI Conference München, 27 August 2013
- 3. Community of Learning groups of diverse people “engaging in collaborative learning and reflective practice involved in transformative learning” (Paloff and Pratt, 2003, p. 17)
- 4. “Birds of a Feather” (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001)
- 5. Homophily • “the principle that a contact between similar people occurs at a higher rate than among dissimilar people.” (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001, p. 416) • homophily can stem from individuals’ membership to a certain organizational unit (e.g. Borgatti & Foster, 2003) Status Homophily (Lazarsfeld & Merton, 1954)
- 6. Pro(s) • improve the coordination process (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992) • limit the potential occurrence of conflicts (Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999) Con(s) • prevent organizations from effectively stimulating an interpersonal knowledge transfer among employees from diverse backgrounds (Akkerman, Admiraal, Simons, & Niessen, 2006)
- 8. • information flows in learning networks are often constrained by formal structures (e.g. Cross, Laseter, Parker, & Velasquez, 2006) • occupying high-level positions within an organization provides individuals with an intrinsic attraction to lower level management (Casciaro, 1998) • individuals might prefer to seek help from socially proximate others to reduce the risk of appearing incompetent (Bamberger, 2009)
- 9. Participants’ Hierarchical Positions activate Homophily within Communities of Learning
- 10. Setting • online training program of a large international organization • 14 weeks of online learning • 25 CoL – 249 participants ~ 10 participants per CoL – Hierarchical Positions: 82 “Low”, 93 “Middle”, 74 “High” • asynchronous discussions forums: – Café-Talk – Content-Related (real-life tasks)
- 11. Instruments Social Network Analysis • External – Internal Index ranges from -1 (all ties are internal) to +1 (all ties are external) Read Networks & Reply Networks (Daradoumis, Martínez-Monés, & Xhafa, 2004)
- 12. E-I Read
- 13. E-I Reply
- 15. Discussion • No Homophily (rather “externalness”) CoL can foster transactive knowledge transfer • Read Networks (Passive Learning) – equally distributed • Reply Networks (Active Learning) – high degree of fluctuation
- 16. • scaffolding activities that structure the learning and interaction processes of participants (e.g. Beers, Boshuizen, Kirschner, & Gijselaers, 2005; Weinberger & Fischer, 2006) • asking facilitators to possibly: – “smoothen out” observed fluctuations – decrease “selective reading process” – actively engage all participants Recommendations
Notas do Editor
- Individuals who are highly central tend also to interact with others who are highly central, making it difficult to determine whether their perceptions are due to an advantageous location in the informal hierarchy or, instead, to specific social influences from their highly central network contacts. People on-the periphery of a social network (e.g., actors X, Y, and Z), however, are far removed from the social or normative influence of the core of the network. They may have similar views that reflect their low power and integration, or they may instead hold vastly divergent opinions that can only be explained as a function of social interaction within their local subcultures.
- Status instead of value homophily
- The E-I Index was calculated by taking the number of ties of a group member to outsiders, subtracting the number of ties to other group members, and divided these by the total number of ties. The resulting index ranges from -1 (all ties are internal to the groups) to +1 (all ties are external to the group)
- The E-I Index was calculated by taking the number of ties of a group member to outsiders, subtracting the number of ties to other group members, and divided these by the total number of ties. The resulting index ranges from -1 (all ties are internal to the groups) to +1 (all ties are external to the group)
- The E-I Index was calculated by taking the number of ties of a group member to outsiders, subtracting the number of ties to other group members, and divided these by the total number of ties. The resulting index ranges from -1 (all ties are internal to the groups) to +1 (all ties are external to the group)
- The E-I Index was calculated by taking the number of ties of a group member to outsiders, subtracting the number of ties to other group members, and divided these by the total number of ties. The resulting index ranges from -1 (all ties are internal to the groups) to +1 (all ties are external to the group)