Matchmaking in Learning Networks. A System to Support Knowledge Sharing Liesbeth Kester, Marlies Bitter-Rijpkema (presenter) Peter van Rosmalen, Peter Sloep, Francis Brouns, Maurice Brouwers, Rob Koper. Presentation TENCompetetence “Learning Networks for lifelong competence development”, Sofia 31 March 2006

Learning networks LN, learning networks (Koper & Sloep 2002) comprise of self-organizing interactive learning experiences of LNU’s (learner network users). LNU’s are stimulated to create their own preferred mode of interaction, learning activities and plans. Social structures are conducive. They are needed for learning. But! Social interaction doesn’t magically occur.

Presentation outline Problem definition Theoretical background Matchmaking system for knowledge sharing Discussion

Problem definition Sociale cohension in Learning Networks (LN) is not self- evident. As a result learners might become isolated from their peers which could hamper learning. (Wegerif 1998). We present a technical infrastructure which invites social interaction to guide self-organization within an LN, matching LNU’s with complementary content expertise.

Focus Sociale embedding LNU’s in LN’s. Stimulating LNU’s to socially interact by sharing knowledge. Formation of ad hoc transient communities. communities that, -exist for a limited period of time. -specifically aim at knowledge sharing.

Knowledge sharing enablers Social embedding LNU’s in LN’s. Stimulating LNU’s to socially interact by sharing knowledge. Formation of ad hoc,transient communities. communities that, -exist for a limited period of time. -specifically aim at knowledge sharing.

Theoretical background Conditions to enable knowledge sharing and learning (Koper et al, submitted) Boundary condition. Heterogeneity condition. Accountability condition.

Boundary condition Clear goal & boundary definition. Goals as incentive to the sharing process. Demarcation with a clear goal, clear boundaries and a clear set of rules. (Kollock & Smidt,1996). Different according to the problem type (single vs various solutions) Interaction-structure. I.e questioning guidelines, scenario’s,peer tutoring, progressive inquiry.

Heterogeneity condition Complementarity of expertise. Heterogeneity in levels of expertise can have differential effects on learning. Cf. heterogenity of peer tutors: far & near tutors (Hinds, et al. 2001)

Accountability condition Recognizability of users: no aliases. History: historical record of user activities. Significant for knowledge sharing are both the content and sharing competence i.e. satisfactory support of peers i.e. via peer performance rating that become part of the LNU’s e portfolio. Visualization of activity & rating. Continuity of commitment and contacts.

Matchmaking system for knowledge sharing Objective: Identify matching LNU’s (cf. dating) Requirements: Web accessibility Modularity Open source Standards: Learning Information Package (LIP) Content Packaging (CP) Learning Design (LD)

Matchmaking system for knowledge sharing Functional components. Request module. Population module. Community module.

Request module LNU’s request space. –content question –times span for answer –contents related –LSA activation maps question vs documents.

Population modules Selection LNU’s to populate the community (PHP). Step 1: determine content competences of LNU –(Accountability condition) Step 2: determine sharing competences of LNU –(Accountability condition) Step 3: assure heterogeneity of community population –(Heterogeneity condition ) Step 4: determine availability of LNU. –(Accountability condition )

Community module Implementation of community in Moodle. Using forum and wiki with peer-tutoring structure. Forum: enabling users to discuss specific topics, organized in threads. LNUs providing the answer can only do so through commenting in the threads. Wiki: LNUs answering by editing each others answers. Arriving at the best answer as a collective. –(Boundary condition)

Future research Investigation in asymmetrical knowledge sharing. Experiments to establish the feasibility of the overall design. Focus on peer tutoring (boundary condition) Q1 “Does a peer-tutoring structure fit the knowledge sharing goal ‘answering a content related question’?” Q2:“Does a peer-tutoring structure put the knowledge sharing process on a higher plane?”. Focus on community composition (heterogeneity condition) Q1 Expertise mix of community members vs spectrum of knowledge shared? Focus on learner-representations in LN (accountability condition). Q1 ePortfolio info to assure accountability?

Discussion Any questions? Thank you! Contact & further information: Marlies Bitter-Rijpkema (avalaible during the conference): Mail: