02.12.2012 Views

Web-based Learning Solutions for Communities of Practice

Web-based Learning Solutions for Communities of Practice

Web-based Learning Solutions for Communities of Practice

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!