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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

approaches concerning social networking analysis,<br />

some <strong>of</strong> them will be mentioned. Closeness<br />

(Sabidussi, 1966) and betweenness (Freeman,<br />

1977), (Anthonisse, 1971) are two measures <strong>of</strong><br />

the centrality <strong>of</strong> vertex within a graph and can be<br />

computed with well established algorithms that<br />

are tightly coupled with common shortest path<br />

algorithms (e.g. graph traversal using Djikstra<br />

algorithm). From an implementation point <strong>of</strong> view,<br />

LEDA (Mehlhorn & Näher, 1999) is a general<br />

scope library which provides adequate support<br />

to extract the required computations.<br />

As a second step <strong>of</strong> analysis, and after the<br />

clustering procedure, we have groups <strong>of</strong> users that<br />

have the same or closely related properties in different<br />

levels <strong>for</strong> each CoP. In particular, consider<br />

a partition <strong>of</strong> the CoP into C1, C2,..., Ck and that<br />

<strong>for</strong> a community Ci there is a division <strong>of</strong> members<br />

into the following set <strong>of</strong> clusters, Cluster i2 n, ...,<br />

Cluster im (let n i1 , n i2 , ..., n im be the number <strong>of</strong><br />

members in each cluster). Then, we can compute<br />

the values <strong>of</strong> each Social Network Analysis measures<br />

<strong>for</strong> every single community <strong>of</strong> practice by<br />

properly adjusting the various <strong>for</strong>mulas taking<br />

into account the values <strong>of</strong> the parameters in each<br />

cluster. This type <strong>of</strong> analysis provides different<br />

results than the results <strong>of</strong> the previous step. After<br />

clustering, we can examine each cluster separately<br />

and then consider a sub-graph <strong>of</strong> the initial graph<br />

where we take into account only users that belong<br />

to this cluster. It is obvious that now the measures<br />

<strong>of</strong> the metrics are different, and we can extract<br />

different types <strong>of</strong> observations. For example a<br />

specific group <strong>of</strong> users within the same community<br />

considered to have high connectivity and<br />

thus may appear as a cluster is actually a “weak”<br />

cluster, where in reality only a part <strong>of</strong> this cluster<br />

is the “knot sum”. For instance, we can find out<br />

users <strong>of</strong> the same cluster that already share some<br />

common characteristics, and were not communicating<br />

as expected. The system can make use <strong>of</strong><br />

the outcome <strong>of</strong> our analysis and provide links or<br />

notifications to the users <strong>of</strong> the same cluster by<br />

90<br />

Mining Unnoticed Knowledge in Collaboration Support Systems<br />

emphasizing the users with low communication<br />

flow and highlighting their activity.<br />

Having these groups <strong>of</strong> users (clusters) we can<br />

also per<strong>for</strong>m cluster analysis. This analysis can<br />

give a better understanding about the relations<br />

between users especially in this type <strong>of</strong> systems<br />

where we have multiple types <strong>of</strong> data. Also it can<br />

help detect outliers (objects from the data that have<br />

different distribution <strong>of</strong> values from the majority<br />

<strong>of</strong> other objects in the space), which may emerge<br />

as singletons or as small clusters far from the<br />

others. For a given intensity <strong>of</strong> communication or<br />

actions, clusters emphasize the various intensity<br />

levels. Cluster analysis also reveals useful in<strong>for</strong>mation<br />

<strong>for</strong> interpretation. We can find how many<br />

groups are in the same community and each group<br />

can be inspected to reveal patterns <strong>of</strong> interest.<br />

In this phase, we can make specific analysis in<br />

each cluster and measure the metrics mentioned<br />

be<strong>for</strong>e. In this way, we can have different type<br />

<strong>of</strong> analysis. For instance, consider some users<br />

that belong to the same community and have a<br />

relationship, but their actions in this community<br />

are limited. In this case, clustering can assist by<br />

grouping them into the same cluster and evaluate<br />

the metrics just <strong>for</strong> them. Otherwise, we cannot<br />

have the opportunity to analyze just the users that<br />

share some common characteristics (like the users<br />

<strong>of</strong> this example) and their relationship would not<br />

be so easy to be revealed.<br />

SUMMARY<br />

A CoP may be regarded as a dynamic organization.<br />

Like any other network, there are some parts which<br />

may have crucial impact on its efficiency. The<br />

identification <strong>of</strong> a set <strong>of</strong> qualitative metrics that<br />

describe the above network can be useful to help<br />

members work more adequately and guarantee the<br />

CoP continuity. The framework we describe may<br />

be applied to a large number <strong>of</strong> systems designed to<br />

support collaboration and may help people identify<br />

in<strong>for</strong>mation that was not obvious from every day

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!