Hybrid Social Learning Networks – Developing a research programme, D4DL Research Note by John Cook, Bali, written 05/06/14

1. Hybrid Social Learning Networks – Developing a research programme
1
D4DL Research Note1
John Cook, Bali, 05/06/14
Hybrid Social Learning Networks: understanding, representing and scaffolding meaning
making in and across emergent temporal contexts for development.
The above terms, which sets in motion a research programme into Hybrid Social Learning
Networks, are unpacked briefly below; they are of course interrelated and overlap. This is
followed by some D4DL planning ideas. Over the coming months D4DL will re-write our
Theory Camp position paper incorporating related responses (these provided the initial frame
for the ideas outlined here and this brief document; I make the reasonable assumption that
you have read this report).
Hybrid Social Learning Networks. For Shadbolt’s et al. (2013), the ‘social machine’
envisaged by Berners-Lee is an ecosystem where humans carry out the creative activities and
machines are partners performing administrative tasks. My view is similar to the social
machine idea; specifically, humans engage in meaning making, machines (lightweight
algorithms, recommender systems) are partners in meaning making, putting people in contact
with the right people, knowledge and answers to questions (to make sense of the world, to
construct meaning based on knowledge). However, as opposed to the ‘social machine’
concept I prefer to use the term ‘Hybrid Social Learning Networks’ as this captures the idea
of a ‘50-50’ partnership (i.e. half machine, half human) whilst only hinting at a human-machine/
cyborg partnership; essentially the phrase puts it all in a softer way which is
appropriate given our context is learning and public sector workers.
Understanding what is happening in work place informal learning and practice is an ongoing
area of research (where there is a relatively small empirical base). Hence we are conducting
empirical & co-design work (see D4DL/Layers Research Reports 1-4:
http://tinyurl.com/occzxxg). Co-design tells us that for the ‘Internet powered coffeehouses’
(Cook and Santos, 2014) to work for the public sector, workers prefer their own private
booths within the coffeehouse, but that they also wish to occasionally interact with other
booths when required. Trust and reciprocity are key issues that need more work. Are there
similar cultural issues in other sectors and countries which would require us to design for
even more privacy?
Representing Vygotskian meaning making activities (see below) in TUG algorithms could
mean that we calculate similarities between Patricia and Mark (see diagram below) in terms
of how much they agree and disagree. So to illustrate the approach, we could look at users,
1 Which means it is cryptic, I am getting my ideas out, comments on the ideas welcome …

2. behaviour and profiles in LinkedIn or Facebook (e.g. interests in films, travel history, etc.) to
find links between users and then do some matching (of content), thus generating similarity
metrics. We then go on to look at similarity or tie strength (this is content based/user based
collaborative filtering where we look at the most similar users and use profiles); after this we
can make more links. So we establish links between people, then match interests
(similarities). From this network we can find our shortest path between A and B (if a path is
short then there is a high probability of similarities). If we have sparse data (e.g. not many
people in our network), we can calculate data on topics. There are intermediate steps ... we
could also for example calculate similarity between documents (see Kowald et al., under
review). Furthermore, the 3Layers distinction between topics take the variable of time into
account – both semantic and verbal; specifically, topics are not forgotten over time but words
are; TUG work suggests that if we put in this type of recommender system it is better than
other approaches. Links to dynamic temporal context in WP2 theory camp paper needs more
work. These are just notes from Skype with Christoph, we await his input; note there is a
debate to be had between Tobias & Christoph’s preferred approach.
Scaffolding interactions withinthe Hybrid Social Learning Network. The Learning Layers
concept of ‘Networked Scaffolding’ is based on a low-barrier approach that collects questions
typically asked in practice.
WP2 perspective simplified perspective is shown above, Natasha discovers a discussion that
she also finds useful thanks to the SSS’s hi-level service “recommendation”. The services and
connections provided/made by SSS in this example are: (1) user event service (finding a
pattern, blue line, they all downloaded same document), (2) connection between the 3 people
(green lines), (3) relationship between data and a new discussion context when Patricia starts
discussion with Mark (purple / dot dash lines), and (4) recommendation service, i.e. a
scaffold suggesting that a person consider joining a relevant discussion (red / arced line);
once Natasha joins the discussion both Mark and Patricia scaffold her. Furthermore, in
Vygotskian terms, we have in play two key concepts: More Capable Peer (Mark is Patricia’s
2

3. More Capable Peer) and Temporal Context for Development (we move from context of
individually reading documents, to context of Patricia and Mark discussing booking
interpreters, and to possibility of Natasha joining this discussion based on a
recommendation).
Meaning making2. In our Vygotskian cultural- historical view, people make sense of the
world as follows, they construct meaning based on knowledge (e.g. meaning making by
reading the answer to a question in an online help forum) and they co-construct meaning with
the help of other people (e.g. more capable peer) and with (this is the hybrid component)
support from tools (e.g. help seeking tool) and scaffolding support algorithms (e.g.
collaborative filtering or the SSS recommendation in the above example).
Context is emergent. We agree with Dourish’s (2004, p. 6) who made the determination that
context cannot be made a priori but is an emergent feature of ‘embodied interaction’,
determined in the moment and in the activity, ‘context isn’t something that describes a
setting’. Participants in new mass communications are now actively engaged in generating
their own content and contexts of practice.
Temporal nature of development and learning. A time field for Vygotsky can be the use of
speech to direct attention in a dynamic way (past, present future elements come into play).
For example, UWE/Leeds have run 2 workshop in Practice C. Workshop 1 Introduced
LinkedIn, Workshop 2 involved the co-design of Help Seeking Tool. One Practice Nurse
commented at end of workshop 2 "I didn't see the benefit of LinkedIn but I do for this". The
Nurse is looking back at LinkedIn, has deemed it out of her field of attention, but the present
experience of the Help Seeking tool has caused her to make her comment, which I take to
mean she is indicating the intention to bring into the centre of her attention the use of Help
Seeking tool for future Practice Nurse Network activities (i.e. using the tool between now -
May 2014 - and September when we hold workshop 3). We have multiple contexts (the time
field) coming into play. We also have a positive comment about the Layers Help Seeking tool
Development. Based on Vygotsky’s concept of the Zone of Proximal Development. Cook
extended ZPD and Vygotskian time field concept (see above) to temporal nature of adult
mediated learning in Augmented Context for Development (Cook, 2010).
Some preliminary research questions
Humans have used social media in its widest sense for the last 2000 years, that is until in the
last century with the arrival of a broadcast pattern of mass media consumption (Standage,
2013). Now the Internet is heralding a revival of social media. However, based on our WP2
Learning Layers workshops with Health sector workers in 2014, the following questions
arise.
2 "The term "meaning making" (i.e., constructing meaning) is found most frequently in constructivist
approaches to education, based on the work of educators such as John Dewey, Maria Montessori, Jean Piaget,
Jerome Bruner, and Lev Vygotsky. In the constructi vist view, meaning is constructed from knowledge",
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_learning, accessed 3 June, 2014.
3

4. Why do public sector workers appear to prefer closed online social networks?
 Is this a temporary arrangement?
 Will their views change as they see the benefits of our Help Seeking tool and wider
4
social networks?
 Or does the public and political scrutiny plus the risks associated with Public Sector
work mean that such an arrangement will persist?
What balance/form should the partnership between humans and algorithms (machines) take
in our Hybrid Social Learning Network?
 What are the related implications for public sector workers, who appear
to prefer closed online social networks?
 What ethical issues are there?
 Is there related work that we can draw on (e.g. social machines, robotics, cybernetics,
trust)?
References
Cook, J. (2010a). Mobile phones as mediating tools within augmented contexts for
development. International journal of mobile and blended learning, 2(3), 1-12. Link to paper
http://goo.gl/NFWnSZ
Cook, J. and Santos, P. (2014). Social Network Innovation in the Internet’s Global
Coffeehouses: Designing a Mobile Help Seeking Tool in Learning Layers. Proceedings of the
International Mobile Learning Festival 2014: Integrating Technology, Social Media and
Learning Design, June 2-4, 2014, Bali, Indonesia. Link to abstract: http://tinyurl.com/k6t9ckz
Dourish, P. (2004). What we talk about when we talk about context. Personal and Ubiquitous
Computing, 8(1), pp. 19–30. Available at:
http://www.dourish.com/publications/2004/PUC2004-context.pdf
Kowald, D., Seitlinger, P. Trattner, C. and Ley, T. (under review). Forgetting the Words but
Remembering the Meaning: Modeling Forgetting in a Verbal and Semantic Tag
Recommender. Recommender Systems 2014.
Shadbolt, N., Smith, D. A., Simperl, E., Van Kleek, M., Yang, Y. Hall, H.. (2013). Towards a
classification framework for social machines. SOCM2013: Workshop on Theory and Practice
of social machines, WWW2013 2013, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Standage, T. (2013). Writing on the Wall. Social Media – The First 2,000 years. Croydon,
UK: Bloomsbury.