Sociability and Usability for Contribution based on ... - CiteSeerX

Lambropoulos, N. (2005). Sociability and Usability for Contribution based on Situated Informal Learning and Consensus Knowledge Building in Online Communities. Online Communities Panel Discussion organized by Dr Jenny Preece. In the Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Usability and Internationalization, in the 11th International Conference on HumanComputer Interaction 2005, 22-27 July, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. Published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc (LEA). http://www.hci-international.org/

Sociability and Usability for Contribution based on Situated Informal Learning and Consensus Knowledge Building in Online Communities Niki Lambropoulos Intelligenesis Consultancy 3, St Ronans, Nether St. N3 1QY London U.K. [email protected]

Abstract This paper presents the results from a study on issues for sociability and usability for legitimate peripheral participation in online communities. Informal learning is considered to occur within the individual in a selforganized way and within the community as consensus knowledge building. A catalogue for usability and sociability evaluation criteria was developed, in order to identify the twofold informal learning as well as consensus knowledge building, to investigate sociability and usability supporting contribution and evaluate the evaluation criteria. Fourteen Greek teachers with a special interest in ICT in Education participated in the study. The findings identified and described mechanisms and strategies for legitimate peripheral participation with contribution as the target as well supported the usability evaluation criteria for online communities.

1

Introduction

Just before the age of Ubiquitous Computing, with the increasing demand for global as well as national cooperation of specialists, communities continuously evolve. People form online communities for information and skills acquisition as well as issues relevant to their interests (Lakhani & von Hippel, 2000). Online communities of practice and communities of special interest (Preece, 2004) usually blend both off and online synergetic activities. The members in such communities share the characteristics of joint enterprise, mutual engagement and shared repertoire (Wenger, 1998). Mutual engagement refers to members’ interaction not only for doing their work towards common goals but to clarify, define, and evolve practices. Shared repertoire refers to the methods, the tools, the techniques, terminology, stories, language and behavioural patterns used as the cultural context of their work. As such, learning occurs in situ. Salomon (1993) suggested that the introduction of computers realizes an important potential: turning learning from a process of simple assimilation into a process of active construction. Engagement in social practice is the fundamental process by which members learn and so become who they are as they pursue shared goals over time (Wenger, 1998). This process is called legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991). LLP is a decentred model where a specialist field would contain different levels en route for newcomers’ engagement and practice; levels of engagement are depended on many factors, both external and internal to the individual. Peripheral members drift into the center as their interests are stirred. In online communities, some of the members act as invisible observers of the synergetic activities and never seem to cross the threshold of observation. Lurking is legitimate, therefore can be classified as legitimate peripheral participation. Carroll & Rosson (1996), refer to lurkers-to-posters ratios 100:1, and Preece from 46% to 82% (2000). Up to now, only one project on lurking and communities of practice explored the meaning of 'legitimate peripheral participants' in a CoP (McDonald et. al, 2003) as a multiprocess phenomenon with a centripetal direction. Newcomers engage in more information seeking than established contributors (Ahuja & Galvin, 2003). In addition, research exists on the factors that enhance legitimate peripheral participation and the necessary level of engagement as contribution in online communities based on informal learning. Lastly, specific usability evaluation criteria for online communities are considered to be absent.

2

Legitimate Peripheral Participation for Informal Learning and Consensus Knowledge Building

Social learning theory posits that people learn from observing other people in social contexts (Merriam and Caffarella 1991: 134). Observational learning is related to modeling: observing based on attention and retention suggests coding information that serves as a guide for action. (Bandura 1977: 22). Situated learning (Lave &


Wenger, 1991) was based on Observational Learning, as the authors tried to involve social contexts as situations of co-participation. ‘Rather than asking what kind of cognitive processes and conceptual structures are involved, they ask what kinds of social engagements provide the proper context for learning to take place’ (p. 14). Learning involves engagement in CoP and full participation requires action on behalf of newcomers. This social process includes the learning of knowledgeable skills (p. 29). The participants are exposed to real life situations, in specific time and space, and the learning that occurs in shared environments is “fundamentally situated in contexts of activity” (Brown et al., 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991), since it occurs “in naturalistic settings” (Suchman, 1987; Lave, 1988). Real situations are central in situated learning, as the environmental characteristics are of the authentic context and activities, expert performance and modeling, multiple roles and perspectives, collaborative construction of knowledge, reflection, articulation and integrated assessment in tasks (Herrington and Oliver, 1995). Internalization and externalization (Miyake, 1997) are suggested to be part of a broader self-directed approach (SOLOS, Self-Organized Learning by Observation in Social contexts, Lambropoulos, 2004) situated in social contexts. They are two cognitive processes that involve ‘learning as increasing participation in communities of practice concerns the whole person acting in the world’ (Lave and Wenger 1991: 49). The crossroads for internalization and externalization is engagement and contribution where contribution is the final target of LPP. Engagement is directed from the periphery to the centre of activity, which suggests that legitimate peripheral participation is the process from registering in the community, developing relationships with the other members, exchanging information and ultimately engaging and helping the community. Identity is related to learning as ‘an evolving, continuously renewed set of relations’ (Wenger, 1999).

Figure 1: The Eyeball of Participation (from the Lurkers’ Project; McDonald et. al, 2003)

2.1

Situated Learning in Online Communities

The stand out characteristic of situated cognition and learning is the placement of individual learning within the larger physical and social context of interactions and culturally constructed tools and meanings. Social and individual are not different levels of study but inexorably interconnected as all learning is learning ‘in situ’ (Suchman, 1993). ‘Situated’ … does not imply that something is concrete and particular, or that is not generalizable, or not imaginary. It implies that a given social practice is multiply interconnected with other aspects of ongoing social processes in activity systems at many levels of particularity and generality (Lave, 1991:84). According to Lave, knowing, learning and cognition are social constructions, expressed in actions of people interacting communities. Community Knowledge Building is connected to situated cognition and learning following the notion of distribution of knowledge (Papert, 1991; Resnick, 1996) in a specific shared context as necessarily situated. Thought and reasoning cannot exist without the Other and dialogue is the conduit of communication: ‘Inherently social activities in which talk and social interactions are not a means … but also how they engage in thinking … discourse is cognition is discourse … one is unimaginable without the other’ (Resnick et al., 1991:2). S such, language is a paramount concept in the situated theory approach. According to Gee (1997:255-256) discourses are sociocultural co-ordinations of people, objects (props), ways of talking, acting, interacting, thinking, valuing, and (sometimes) writing and reading that allow the display and recognition of socially significant identities. Soller et al (2002) defined a knowledge sharing episode as: ‘…a series of conversational contributions (utterances) and actions (e.g. on a shared workspace) that begins when one group member introduces new knowledge into the group conversation, and ends when discussion of the new knowledge ceases. New knowledge is defined as knowledge that is unknown to at least one group member other than the knowledge sharer…’ (Soller et al.,2002:128). A primary ability involved in the transfer of learning in situ is that which allows the learners to identify similarities between the new or novel situation and previous situations and a common way of describing this process is ‘generalisation’ or in this context Consensus Knowledge Building. Salomon and Perkins (1989) refer to this concept as ‘abstraction’, that is ‘the extraction or identification unit of material in a situation or behaviour’. Abstraction provides a bridge from one context to


another. Online communities are text based and as such it is difficult for the members to assume and model other people’s meanings and behaviour. Consequently the role of the dialogue becomes even more important as the only channel of communication.

2.2

Informal Learning and Consensus Knowledge Building Situated in Online Communities

Livingston (2000) indicated that informal learning includes anything you do to gain knowledge, skill or understanding from learning about anything that interests the individual outside of formal or organized courses occurred either individually or collectively. He stresses the fact that ‘the centrality of their tacit knowledge to the production and reproduction of society has typically been unrecognized both by others and by these people themselves’. According to McGivney, V. (1999) informal learning is learning that takes place outside a dedicated learning environment and which arises from the activities and interests of individuals or groups, but which may not be recognised as learning. Livingston suggested that the basic terms of informal learning (e.g., objectives, content, means and processes of acquisition, duration, evaluation of outcomes, applications) are determined by the individuals and groups that choose to engage in it. He uses the terms explicit and implicit knowledge as found in Claxton, (1998:31). Livingston stresses the importance of the collective aspects of informal learning - the social engagement with others - as an integral part of any actual knowledge acquisition process. In addition, he suggests that ‘much of the most important learning adults do occurs in these moments of transition which provoke a concentrated period of informal learning’. Everyday learning is not considered to be part of the education and the educational system. In informal learning, formal education is used a tool the individual uses in action. As such, it contradicts slow and ineffectual formal learning that appears more as a military service. Formal educational characteristics are based on repetition, imitation, thinking in circles, educational design patterns rooted in the curricula as well as fixed educational toolkits (e.g. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, Learning Objects). In Informal learning, the concept of consensus is a process for reaching group decisions and it is not a hierarchical control structure where much of the energy of the community goes into maintaining control. Community knowledge building involves choice processes by the individuals whose purpose is to find an option and make a decision. Consensus has a dynamic perspective and is a major goal of group decision making and knowledge building, ‘a full and unanimous agreement’ (Löwer, 1985). The most important aspect of this learning is the identification of the process and the environment at once. This indicates a process of cooperation and interaction among the community members. As a result, Consensus Knowledge Building derived from Informal Learning and describes the following processes for both the individual and the community: (a) being aware of the situation, identification of the framework; (b) description of the situation/environment; (c) description of problems and provision of solutions and suggestions; (d) participation in the process of changing the previous environment. This framework might provide an initial canvas for Informal Learning and Consensus Knowledge Building assessment and validation. As a result, Informal Learning and Consensus Knowledge Building are considered to be process-based instead of facts-based learning and they: • are based on intimate relationships between the individual and the environment on a daily basis; • are the place where both the inside and the outside world meet not based on ideational but factual events, as the result of deep understanding; • go beyond fragment finding and carries the joy of learning itself without any motive. • are the environment where profit and goals are not the issues since all actions are incomplete and weaved in Life-long learning framework. Engeström’s (1987) ‘expansive’ learning model for assessment methodologies reflects the ability of the individual to (a) question established facts; (b) define and clarify problems; (c) cooperate and find possible solutions; (d) approach unexpected problems; and (e) formulate and implement solutions. Although Informal Learning and Consensus Knowledge Building have been identified as significant as formal learning in this paper, there is great difficulty on validating them since any alteration of the known formal education patterns is suggesting chaos and confusion. However, our model tries to expand Engeström’s proposition, referring to the ability of the individual and the community to: (i) be aware of the situation, identification of the context; (ii) describe the context without subjective projections; (iii) work-in-process; (iv) describe of problems and provide of solutions and suggestions in a collective way; (v) suggest new ideas based on collaboration and brainstorming – community knowledge building; and (vi) participate in the process of changing the previous environment by implementing previous suggestions.


A person's life within the community tends to be centripetal as it is important to move closer to mastery of the task. Learning Practice refers to the following activities: Problem solving, information seeking, seeking experience, Reusing assets, Coordination and synergy, Discussing developments, Documentation projects, Visits, Mapping knowledge and identifying gaps. Kearsley and Shneiderman (1999) suggested that engagement in learning requires technology that could facilitate engagement in ways which are difficult to achieve otherwise.

3

Indicators for Sociability and Usability for Legitimate Peripheral Participation in Online Communities: Building Consensus Knowledge via Informal Learning

Usability is a measure of quality of user’s experience when interacting with a system. Usability can be defined in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction (ISO FDIS 9241-11, 1997). Usability for online communities is translated in navigation, access, information design and dialogue support. Muller-Prothmann and Siedentorf (2003) developed a usability evaluation criteria catalogue for online knowledge communities. Based on this research, our attempt was to develop sociability and usability evaluation criteria considering three views: the developer’s, the user’s and the researcher’s. Muller-Prothmann and Siedentorf (2003) developed the usability catalogue based on (a) the facility-types and technical components human factors (Shneiderman, 1992) in Usability Design for Online Knowledge Communities (ACM’s SIG in HCI (SIGHCI) and IFIP’s Task Group of HCI - GigaMobile, 2002); (b) Wenger’s suggestions (2001); and (c) Preece’s (2000) three building blocks of usability. Our aim is to amend this model in order to support legitimate peripheral participation process in online communities combining sociability and usability (Preece, 2000). In addition, we introduce the evaluator’s tools for ‘Live Research’ in online communities’ groupz-ware in order to support the Darwinian nature of communities. The suggested research methodological approaches to support the model are Social Network Analysis, Time-series Design and Discourse Analysis. As such, the criteria were developed as following: A. Sociability: People, Purposes, Practices - Management of the Community, (code S) A1. Sociological aspects 1. Identity: Shared sense of identity, purposes (code S-ID) 2. Relations: continuing mutual relationships – harmonious or conflicting (regular, work-related interactions); A widespread and shared awareness of each others’ competencies, strengths, shortcomings and contributions (code S-REL) 3. Language: common stories, legends, lore, "inside" jokes; a shared, evolving language (e.g., special terms, jargon, "shortcuts" such as acronyms, etc.); perspectives reflected in language that suggest a common way of viewing the world (shared analogies, examples, explanations) (code S-LAN) A2. Management aspects 4. Practice: introduction to the community, shared ways of doing things together (common practices and beliefs about best practices); shared innovation among members (transfer of best practices); methods, techniques and artifacts such as bulletin boards, management and community development; behavior patterns that signify membership usual in real interaction is more difficult to occur in online interaction (code S-PRA) 5. Community Knowledge: a rapid flow of information between and among members; conversations come quickly to the point; problems are quickly framed (common understanding) (code S-CK) 6. Evaluation and Assessment: an ability, concentrated or distributed, to assess the effectiveness of actions taken and the utility of products produced (code S-EVA) 7. Evaluation for Research: sociability evaluation (code S-RE) B. Usability: HCI and Interaction design for Online Communities Grouz-ware (code U) 1. Common tools (U-TOOLS) based on the previous sociability indicators. As such the tools are suggested to support identity (code U-ID), relations (code U-REL), language (code U-LAN), practices (code U-PRA), community knowledge (code U-CK) and evaluation (code U-EVA). 2. Research Tools: usability evaluation (code U-RE) 3. Additional features (code U-ETC) A table of the characteristics was created and used to support the aims of the study: to identify the twofold informal learning and consensus knowledge building, to investigate sociability and usability supporting contribution and evaluate the evaluation criteria themselves.


4

The Study

Fourteen out of 61 subjects (22,95%, ) from the ‘Greek Primary Teachers’ Association for the Valorization of ICT in Education’ (EEEP, formed in December 2003), responded to a questionnaire with 22 open and closed questions in July and August 2004. The members use an emailing list based on Moodle Open Source Learning Management system. The aims of the study were to test the Sociability and Usability Criteria Model as well as investigate engagement and contribution in depth, as part of LPP, Informal Learning and Consensus Knowledge Building. Qualitative Research Methodology was used, based on content analysis (Bauer, 2000) under the twofold perspective of discourse analysis (Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis, Herring, 2001) and empirical linguistic analysis (Herring, 2001). The evaluation Criteria Catalogue for Sociability and Usability was viewed as a proposal and used to identify members’ opinions, not to evaluate sociability and usability issues within EEEP. This was due to the absence of groupz-ware. Table 1: Sociability and Usability Evaluation for EEEP Sociability Elements

SU-ID

People- Policies - Purposes – Beliefs – Practices Greek Primary Teachers’ Association for the Valorization of ICT in Education Description on the Front page Sense of shared identity - Descriptions of domains of interest Greek Primary Teachers’ Association for the Valorization of ICT in Education Description on the Front page > 42,9% felt part of the group within 2-3 day Members Profiles – Directory - New Users > male to female teachers ratio was 2/3 to 1/3 > 7 subjects (50%) suggested that the new members bring modern ideas and new interests to the group; 4 (28,6%) indicate the importance of community knowledge building based on new members’ contribution, 2 (14,3%) community’s maintenance Locations Greece News (ongoing activities, changes, world news) available on a webpage, in a different website than the actual discussion forums

SU-RE

Groupz-ware eeep.gr website, Greek Primary Teachers’ Association for the Valorization of ICT in Education Profiling system clickable members, monitoring newcomers (n/a) Tracking members’ locations (n/a) Easy to be Updated – Newsletters (n/a)

Mutual Relationships, Behavioural Patterns: > The highest percentage (28,6%) was using computers about 1-2 hours per week and the production of material using both the computers and the internet.

Community Networks

Work-related interactions > 78,6% interaction with different communities of practice is important for the community towards production > Sub-groups based on community’s common interests > sub-topics > Cooperation with members via personal communication preferably via email

Outer links for collaborationWork-related Topics – Jobs (n/a)

On Contribution > 85,7% discussion is a reason for active participation > 7 (50%) contribution aids to effective learning; 5 (35,7%) to personal development; 4 (28,6%) to get information; 4 (28,6%) it is the future for education; 3 (21,4%) to be able to help the students; 1 (7,1%) the reason for active participation is communication; 1 (7,1%) fun; 1 (7,1%) production of material; 1 (7,1%) s/he did not know; 2 (14,3%) did not give any answer. Reasons for Contribution > 78,6% common interest, interesting topic; 50% the use of the community; 50% challenge; 42,9% opposition; 21,4% somebody else told them to participate. The fact that this worked for a ratio of 21,4%, makes the moderator responsible for ‘pushing’ some members. They contribute in order to: > 71,4% add something different, promotion of views; 64,3% reaction and response to a message, 42,9 % clarify something said; 7,1% see different views; 7,1% open a new topic; 21,4% self-introduction was second

HCI Design Dialogue (consistent, controllable, predictable), meaningful subgroups Word filter Dictionary – Thesaurus for English language – Threaded messages – Introduction area


SULAN

SUPRA

Energetic lingering and Active Observation Reading Engagement Decisions on withdrawal from the community are without warning > Most teachers (78,6%) believe that active participation is important Newcomers – Shortcomings n/a Lurking fear of speaking in public Personal Judgment Not being interested in the topic Need of definition of personal enquiries Need of decisions on what to do next. Search and advanced search. Common stories [evident in discussions] Inside jokes [evident in discussions] Jargon [Nobody asked what a lurker is] Perspectives > personal judgment and self-directed learning (28,6%) > 35,7% thought that there is the potency to improve the English language Analogies, examples Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis of messages Explanations n/a Registration Introduction & induction – Help and Support > Familiarisation with both the interface and the community > If the feedback is positive the communication continues; if negative, the newcomer returns to the previous observational and lingering state Membership Management Privacy and Security [available in personal emails] Levels of participation Process of Active Observation (Subjects A, B, E, H, J, K) First contact with the community Energetic lingering for Active Observation and Awareness Aporiai, hesitation, doubt, insecurity Familiarisation with the community Asymmetrical to symmetrical interactions: finding the minimum level of agreement with community’s nature, culture and common visions. Finding interesting topics – information Participation is natural to have different stages and levels of participation due to member’s individuality. Everyone has their own rhythm and learning styles as well as own participation in his/her learning. This process is related to newcomer’s profile, familiarization with the environment and the community (Subjects G, K, L) Roles > 3 (21,4%) need for leading; 2 (14,3%) familiarisation with computers facilitates the process of adapting roles; 1 (7,1%) need for resolving conflicts, one (7,1) need for organization; specialization is essential for 2 respondents (14,3%) as well as active participation (14,3%). > The moderator is important on providing information (21,4%) > leading is needed (21,4%). The capabilities of the person who adapts the specific role, familiarisation with computers, specialisation and being an active member by nature Shared practices, Transfer of Innovations, Methods and Techniques Moderation – Netiquette n/a One way Communication n/a Interactions Projects are helpful to encourage contribution as they trigger judgment and discussion Experts – Gurus n/a

Votes, Polls, Surveys, Newsletters, meaningful subgroups and subtopics Basic search HCI dialogue design (consistent, controllable, predictable), meaningful subgroups Word filter Dictionary Thesaurus Good RS Accessible and memorable interface & navigation Access, Roles Email

Monitoring Users Anonymous Posting Facility

Awards / Ranking (n/a)

Area of Expertise n/a Votes, Polls, Chatbots, Surveys (n/a) HCI Dialogue Design (n/a) ‘Ask the expert’ (n/a)

Artifacts Exhibition Area, [Consensus Knowledge Building is the Abstract Product of Discussion] Projects Presentation of members’ projects on an individual basis give the background for websites discussions (n/a) >‘Need for ‘production, pedagogical material analysis and methodology, effective manuals based on deduction and induction of knowledge, freedom of the pedagogical i In Ancient Greek, the state of aporia describes the state of of ideas, observation and looking answersvisions’ without additional judgment in the search. approaches and philosophy, exchange experiences andfor common

Lambropoulos, N. (2005). Sociability and Usability for Contribution based on Situated Informal Learning and Consensus Knowledge Building in Online Communities. Online Communities Panel Discussion organized by Dr Jenny Preece. In the Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Usability and Internationalization, in the 11th International Conference on HumanComputer Interaction 2005, 22-27 July, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. Published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc (LEA). http://www.hci-international.org/ (Subject E) Community Development - Promotion of Community Expertise > personal development 35,7%. > contribution facilitates effective learning and transfer of knowledge (21,4%); indicate the target for participation in online communities whereas the medium to achieve this is getting information (28,6% ), communication (7,1%), fun (7,1%), and production of material (7,1%) Flow of information [evident] Conversations quickly to the point [evident] Problems framed quickly [evident] Shared work space, collaboration tools Moodle VLE, emailing list SU-CK

SUEVA

Consensus Knowledge Building – Changes for the Working Environment > learn from the active members (42,9%) > The moderator is important on providing information as well (21,4%) Suggested Changes (Subjects A, B, C, J, N, K) - the educational authorities and their attitudes towards the use of computers in the classrooms as well as reconstruction of the curriculum in a more open manner. These are responsible for the infrastructure regarding ICT availability for all teachers, regular updates and maintenance of the systems, technical support as well as free provision of educational software to all schools. - the teachers regarding training, professional development, theoretical and methodological approaches and motivation and - the students for training and real use of the computers in the classrooms in a crosscurriculum approach based on pedagogical approaches. Synchronous Communications [not used] Community and Personal Feedback n/a Discussion Assessment n/a Sociability and Usability Assessment n/a Personalisation features n/a

U Easy Access – Interface Memorability – Ease of Learning n/a Monitoring Users n/a Social Network Analysis n/a SU-RE Discourse Analysis – Community Knowledge Basis n/a

External collaboration tools (n/a) Easy-to-use tools Content indexation and classification (n/a) Easy-to-Use file upload, wikis, whiteboards, blogs (n/a)

Information architecture, Secure Database with Search & Indexation (n/a)

n/a n/a Bookmark and Rank topics (n/a) Research Tools (n/a) Customization (n/a) Navigation [Basic] Live Tracking System (n/a) Piajek, UCINET (n/a) Content Management System Indexation (n/a)

SUETC

The evaluation Criteria Catalogue for Sociability and Usability helped to have a bird’s eye view of the community regarding sociability and usability. ‘Active waiting’ is a new term suggested by Subject K that describes the anticipation, eagerness and hidden expectations of the newcomer in an effort to understand the nature and the culture of the community. The cycle of thesis – antithesis – synthesis might be central for the architecture of a replying message (Subject K). Members profiling depends mostly on the writing style and what actually the person says and then contribution to the community (Subject N). The members who replied to the importance of active participation (35,7%) were the members who actually replied that they did develop feelings –although negative (42,9%)- as being part of the community. The remaining openness actually provides a positive climate regardless the negativity in the group. After the crosstabulation of the results, from the 12 subjects (12, 85,7%) who believe in the importance of active participation in the group, 5 of them (35,7%) developed feelings, 3 (21,4%) did not develop any feelings and 3 (21,4%) were open. The remaining 2 subjects (14,3%) who did not reply in the question of the importance of active participation said that they were open.


5

Discussion

Even though the evaluation Criteria Catalogue for Sociability and Usability helped to have a helicopter view of the community and members’ needs, it needs to be used in coherent online communities for further evaluation. Consensus Knowledge Building framework suggested that the members were aware of the problems for absence of contribution as well as problems related to their working environment; they identified and described the context of working within communities; they worked-in-process and described problems; they provided solutions and suggestions in a collective way; they suggested new ideas based on collaboration and brainstorming – community knowledge building; and they do use their association to participate in the process of changing the previous environment by implementing previous suggestions. Based on the finding the sociability issues appeared as following: People: There are different types of communities as well as participants and non-participants. As such, three basic issues define the nature of an online community: (i) the individual as a social being (community building); (ii) the natural tendency of the human being to learn (community knowledge building) and (c) consensus decision making. The actual decision on registering in a community indicates the most important drives for an individual, the intention and motivation for sharing knowledge. There are several techniques for motivation: encouraging the members to build profiles, getting to know each other, opportunities for self-observation, induction, sub-groups, finding suitable discussions, etc. So the findings were on: Purposes: The main community purposes need to appear in the interface before the registration processes. The zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) and supported by asymmetrical interactions, is the key for newcomers integration via legitimate peripheral participation (Lave and Wenger, 1991). Policies: The moderators need to foster and support their community as a unique, organic body, help members on their learning process, seeing each member on an individual basis with specific interests, needs, targets and common visions. Culture and ethics, awareness and insights from improvisation, feelings of acceptance and trust, guidance and support, empathy, develop attitudes for interacting with people in a safe environment. The initial stage of information and registration as well as induction and training is when moderators are needed to support newcomers and prevent the ‘lurker’s corner’. Practices on Contribution: Informal and Consensus Knowledge building derived from the findings for supporting sociability and usability for engagement and contribution to communities. According to members’ suggestions, contribution is a developing process and both the management and the system are of great importance to facilitate LPP. The developers and the moderators are supposed to work continuously as in the first week of newcomers’ participation, help and support the members and provide them with the tools they need. One of the most important finding is the need of a good moderator, sensitive to the members’ needs and with special attention to the early stages of registration (Brochet, 1989). As such, information about the nature and culture of the community and continuous support needs to meet a first informative page, good registration system, live tracking system. Good search facility based on thesaurus, messages indexation and a supporting content management system wit indexation facility will help the members to save time and being accurate with their interests and perhaps being more. The process is based on time and interactions between the members as on one and two ways of communication, revolving on the time of registration as the starting point. The process of Management is not a static one but a dynamic process every time an individual decides to register to the community. The first days after registration are of most importance. The overall issues for the process of legitimate peripheral participation supporting contribution appear as following as derived from the evaluation criteria catalogue: Matching Sociability and Usability A. Before Registration: Acquiring information - Informative Front Page B. Registration – Enrolment: minimum agreement with the community’s basic sociability issues on the part of the newcomer is reassured. Both the system and the moderator need to encourage, help, support and motivate the newcomer to ask for help from the community members. C. After Registration – Maintenance • Search for existing discussion topics, sub-groups


•

Active Observation of Discussions: First contact with the community; Energetic lingering for Active Observation; Aporiaii, hesitation, doubt, insecurity; Familiarisation with the community; finding the minimum level of agreement with community’s nature, culture and common visions; Finding interesting topics – information. • Personal Judgment: Agreement of being interested in the topic; Definition of personal enquiries; Decisions on what to do next • Actions (based on personal judgment): Cooperation with members via personal communication preferably via email; Engagement in discussion; New suggestions are based on the previous messages; Feedback is based on the previous message; Support from the community – Feedback, if the feedback is positive the communication continues, if negative, s/he returns to the previous observational and lingering state; Projects are helpful as they trigger judgment and discussion; Presentation of projects give the background for discussions; New doubts and new questions to be answered • Repetition of the Participation Process: (a) Energetic lingering and Active Observation; (b) Reading; (c) Engagement; (d) Decisions on withdrawal from the community are without warning and (e) Technical support and suggestions to the developers and moderators Findings from a different study (Lambropoulos, 2005), suggest that volunteers could provide great help for Consensus Knowledge Building since they are community members. One suggested technique for potential participants’ activation was analysing interaction in one and two-ways of communication. Initial one-way communication could be encouraged with votes, polls, surveys or special offers and anonymous posting. That positive climate during this group discussion activated 7 members in 20 days. More than half of the messages (53,1%) in the study appeared to have a pattern: an initial introduction as a response to the selected message, an extensive explanation and justification of their point was made, an example was making suggestions very clear and lastly, a greeting or an interesting quote used to ‘sign’ the message. But at the end, non-participants have the right not to participate if they do not want to; these are the lurkers. Both clusters of findings provide practical frameworks to leave ‘delurking’ as the last option.

6

Conclusion and Future Trends

The results of the study proved the need for an evaluation criteria catalogue in conjunction with discourse analysis in order to combine the concepts of sociability and usability. In addition, it could identify informal and consensus knowledge building as the respondents created frameworks for management and design for online communities that derived directly from their practice as the dynamic nature of evaluation criteria catalogue allowed new attributes to be emerged as well. Sociability and Usability are the key concepts behind online communities’ Darwinian evolution for all members in their crossroad of international and externalization that might lead to return some of the benefits back to the community.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank Sara Martin, Christopher Lai Khee Choong and Sophi Danis for the unlimited source of inspiration. Special thanks to all EEEP members and their permission to use their messages and their ideas.

References Ahuja, M., (2002). “Information Technology and the Gender Factor”, European Journal of Information Systems, 11, 1, pp. 20-34. Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs London: Prentice Hall. Bauer, M. (2000). Classical content analysis: A review. In M. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound (pp. 131-151). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brochet, M. G. (1989). Effective moderation of computer conferences: Notes and suggestions. In M. G. Brochet (Ed.) Moderating conferences (pp. 6.01-6.08). Guelph, Ontario: University of Guelph. Brown, J. S., Collins, S.A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42. Retrieved February 10 2005, from http://www.exploratorium.edu/IFI/resources/museumeducation/situated.html Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (1996). Getting around the task-artifact cycle: How to make claims and design by scenario. In Rudisill, M., Lewis, C., Polson, P. B., & McKay, T. D. (Eds.), Human-computer interface ii

In Ancient Greek, the state of aporia describes the state of observation and looking for answers without additional judgment in the search.


design: Success stories, emerging methods, and real-world context, 229-268. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Claxton, G., (1997). Hare Brain, Tortoise Mind: Why Intelligence Increases When You Think Less. London: Fourth Estate. Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit OY. Gee, J. P. (1997). Thinking, learning, and reading: The situated sociocultural mind. In D. Kirshner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.). Situated cognition: Social, semiotic and psychological perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. GigaMobile. State of the art human-computer interaction. Technical report, Telematica Instituut, 2002. Herring, S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 612-634). Oxford: Blackwell. Herrington, J. & Oliver, R. (1999). Using Situated Learning and Multimedia to Investigate Higher-Order Thinking. Journal of Interactive Learning Research (1999) 10(1), 3-24. ISO FDIS 9241-11. Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals (VDTs), Part 11: Guidance on Usability Specification and Measures. Technical report, 1997. Kearsley, G & Shneiderman, B. (1999). Engagement Theory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning Retrieved February 13, 2005 from http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/engage.htm Lakhani K., Von Hippel E. (2000). How Open Source software works: ‘free’ user-to-user assistance, MIT Sloan School of Management WP #4117. Lambropoulos, N. (2005). Recognition of Sociabilty and Usability for Active Participation based on Informal Learning in Communities of Interest. Dasgupta, Subhasish (Ed.) (2005), Encyclopaedia of Virtual Communities. Hershey, PA, USA: Idea Publishing. (in press). Lambropoulos, N. (2004). Greek Teachers' Online Community of Practice: Life-Long Learning in Practice. In the Proceedings of ALT-C 2004, the 11th International Conference of the Association for Learning Technology (ALT), Blue skies and pragmatism: learning technologies for the next decade. Exeter, U.K. (pp. 102-103). Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning. Legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. Livingstone, D. W. (2000). ‘Exploring the icebergs of adult learning: findings of the first canadian survey of informal learning practices’. NALL Working Paper #10-2000, The Research Network on New Approaches to Lifelong Learning Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto (OISE/UT). Löwer, B. (Guest ed.): Special Issue on Consensus. Synthese 62 (1985). MacDonald, J.., Atkin W., Daugherity F., Fox, H., MacGillivray, A., Reeves-Lipscomb, D., Uthailertaroon, P. (2003) Let's get more positive about the term 'lurker', CPsquare Foundations of Communities of Practice Workshop. Retrieved February 10, 2005, from http://www.cpsquare.org/edu/foundations/index.htm McGivney, V. (1999). Informal Learning in the Community: A Trigger for Change and Development. Leicester: National Institute of Adult and Continuing Education. Merriam, S.B., & Caffarella, R.S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Miyake, N. (1997). Making Internal Processes External for Constructive Collaboration. Cognitive Technology, Fukushima, Japan, August 27,1997. Muller-Prothmann, T and Siedentorf, C (2003). Designing Online Knowledge Communities: Developing a Usability Evaluation Criteria Catalogue. 3rd European Knowledge Management Summer School, 7-12 Sept, 2003 San Sebastian, Spain. Papert, S. (1991). Situating Constructionism. Constructionism, eds. Harel, Idit and Seymour Papert, eds. Constructionism, Section 3. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Company, 1991. Preece, J. (2004) Etiquette and trust drive online communities of practice. Journal of Universal Computer Science. (in press). Preece, J. (2000): Online Communities - Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, New York, Weinheim, Brisbane, Singapore, Tokyo 2000. Preece, J. (1998) Empathic Communities: Reaching out across the Web. Interactions, March 1998, 2, 32-43. Resnick, L. B., Pontecorvo, C., Saljo, R. & Burge, B. (1997) Discourse, Tools, and Reasoning, Berlin, Springer Verlag. Resnick, M. (1991). Xylophones, Hamsters, and Fireworks: The Role of Diversity in Constructionist Activities. In Harel, Idit and Seymour Papert, eds. Constructionism, Section 3. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Company, 1991.


Salomon, G. (ed.) (1993). Distributed Cognitions. Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Salomon, G., and Perkins, D.N. (1998). Individual and Social Aspects of Learning. Review of Educational Research, 23, pp. 1-24. Shneiderman, B. (1992). Designing the User Interface. Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. Addison-Wesley, Reading/Mass. et al. Soller, A., Wiebe J., & Lesgold, A. (2002). A machine learning approach to assessing knowledge sharing during collaborative learning activities. International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL-2002). Boulder, Colorado. Retrieved February 13, 2005 from http://www.cs.pitt.edu/%7Ewiebe/pubs/papers/sollerwiebelesgold02.doc Suchman, L.A. (1993). Response to Vera and Simon’s situated action: A symbolic interpretation. Cognitive Science, 17, 71–75. Suchman, L.A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wenger E. (2001). Supporting communities of practice - a survey of community-oriented technologies.Draft Version 1.3, March 2001. Wenger, E. (1999) Communities of Practice. Learning, meaning and identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press.

Sociability and Usability for Contribution based on ... - CiteSeerX

Sociability and Usability for Contribution based on ... - CiteSeerX

Suggest Documents

Usability and Sociability in Online Communities: A ... - CiteSeerX

Sociability Based Routing for Environmental ... - Google Sites

A Structure for Usability Based Patterns - CiteSeerX

Model-based Tools for Pervasive Usability - CiteSeerX

Sociability and play on location-based social networks: dynamics of ...

Usability Basics for Software Developers usability ... - CiteSeerX

Testing and evaluation for Web usability based on ... - Springer Link

Usability Comparison of Mouse-based Interaction ... - CiteSeerX

Motives for socialization, sociability and other positive

Platforms for mediated sociability and online social

Usability metrics for components - CiteSeerX

An Ontology-Based Approach for Designing Web Usability ... - CiteSeerX

Towards a Pattern Based Usability Inspection Method for ... - CiteSeerX

Model-based Simulation of Web Applications for Usability ... - CiteSeerX

Phatic Technologies: Sustaining Sociability through ... - CiteSeerX

Ritual Aspects of CMC Sociability - CiteSeerX

Supporting Sociability in a Shared Browser - CiteSeerX

An Improved Usability Measure Based on Novice

Networked Sociability and Individualism - DiVA

Rethinking Virtual Space as a Place for Sociability: Theory ... - CiteSeerX

A Measurement Model Based on Usability Metrics for ...

Usability Evaluation Based on International Standards for Software ...

Usability and Acceptance of UF-IBA, an Image-Based ... - CiteSeerX

A Usability Checklist for the Usability Evaluation of Mobile ... - CiteSeerX