Web-based Learning Solutions for Communities of Practice
Web-based Learning Solutions for Communities of Practice
Web-based Learning Solutions for Communities of Practice
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
through continuous learning (Rosenberg, 2001). In<br />
fact, most organizations already support learning<br />
activities through seminars and other traditional<br />
learning activities. Nevertheless, all <strong>of</strong> the above<br />
are not sufficient (“codified and transferred”<br />
learning (Robey, D., Khoo, H.M. and Powers,<br />
2000); new methodologies, <strong>based</strong> on networked<br />
technology, have emerged to satisfy the gap between<br />
tacit and explicit knowledge. Collaborative<br />
environments - aiming at supporting collaboration<br />
among groups <strong>of</strong> people <strong>for</strong>ming <strong>Communities</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Practice</strong> (CoPs) - are believed to be one <strong>of</strong><br />
the most promising solutions to promote what is<br />
commonly known as “collective intelligence” or<br />
“organizational memory” (Ackerman, 1998). The<br />
term CoP is used to define a group <strong>of</strong> people with<br />
“common disciplinary background, similar work<br />
activities and tools and shared stories, contexts and<br />
values” (Millen, Fontaine & Muller, 2002).<br />
A comparison between online and traditional<br />
CoPs naturally results to several differences (Pall<strong>of</strong>f<br />
& Pratt, 1999). Even though the goal <strong>of</strong> this<br />
work is not to study them thoroughly, some <strong>of</strong><br />
them are intentionally mentioned. A traditional<br />
CoP <strong>of</strong>ten confronts time and space limitations and<br />
its members are assigned a specific role. Furthermore,<br />
entrance to a traditional CoP may require a<br />
more intentional motivation, while CoP members<br />
tend to self-organize through certain physical activities.<br />
On the other hand, online CoPs are more<br />
likely to define more “fluid” limitations. This can<br />
result to more “peripheral” members with less<br />
“visibility” (Zhang, Wei & Storck, 2001). Taking<br />
the above into consideration, several implications<br />
arise concerning online CoP contribution. In fact,<br />
usage analysis <strong>of</strong> online CoPs has shown that one<br />
<strong>of</strong> the greatest problems is the “fading back” and<br />
absence <strong>of</strong> members’ identities (Haythornthwaite,<br />
Kazmer, Robins & Shoemaker, 2000).<br />
Related with the above remarks, contemporary<br />
tools receive criticism regarding lack <strong>of</strong><br />
active participation and limited engagement in<br />
their use, which is partially due to the inability<br />
<strong>of</strong> identifying and exploiting a set <strong>of</strong> important<br />
84<br />
Mining Unnoticed Knowledge in Collaboration Support Systems<br />
relationships among community members and the<br />
associated collaboration-related assets. In order to<br />
further investigate the a<strong>for</strong>ementioned problem,<br />
we proceed to a thorough examination <strong>of</strong> environments<br />
provided to online CoPs. Aiming at keeping<br />
our subject <strong>of</strong> study as general as possible, we<br />
prescribe some commonly met characteristics.<br />
In order to sufficiently elaborate collaboration<br />
among CoP members, we prescribe a framework<br />
that elaborates and integrates issues from the Data<br />
Mining and the Social Networking disciplines.<br />
By applying such an interdisciplinary approach,<br />
our aim is to reveal meaningful relationships, as<br />
well as valuable in<strong>for</strong>mation about the members’<br />
roles and competences, thus strengthening the<br />
community’s integrity.<br />
RELATED WORK<br />
Contemporary approaches to online environments<br />
hosting a large group <strong>of</strong> users build on diverse<br />
user pr<strong>of</strong>iling mechanisms (Fink & Kobsa, 2001).<br />
These approaches usually distinguish between<br />
static (or user defined) and dynamic (a set <strong>of</strong><br />
attributes updated by the system) user pr<strong>of</strong>iles.<br />
Dynamic attributes derive by tracking down user<br />
actions and aim at providing a more personalized<br />
environment. Personalization <strong>of</strong> the environment<br />
may include user interface adaptation by making<br />
most usable actions or in<strong>for</strong>mation more easily<br />
accessible. Moreover, by taking into account a<br />
user’s pr<strong>of</strong>ile, these approaches aim at filtering<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation which generally resides in a big<br />
collection <strong>of</strong> documents. In<strong>for</strong>mation filtering is<br />
achieved by reading the content <strong>of</strong> these documents<br />
and combining its content with the user’s<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>ile. The main goal <strong>of</strong> these approaches is to<br />
provide individualized recommendations to users<br />
concerning the system items (Burke, 2002).<br />
Social network analysis (SNA) is a tool that<br />
allows the examination <strong>of</strong> social relationships<br />
in a group <strong>of</strong> users and reveals hidden relationships<br />
(Wasserman & Faust, 1994). In fact, social