Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
EDiNEB 2010
EDiNEB 2010
EDiNEB 2010
EDiNEB 2010
EDiNEB 2010
EDiNEB 2010
EDiNEB 2010
EDiNEB 2010
EDiNEB 2010
EDiNEB 2010
EDiNEB 2010
EDiNEB 2010
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

EDiNEB 2010

333

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
333
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Diversity in Communities of Learning The Influence of Hierarchical Position on Individuals’Activity and Performance Martin Rehm EDiNEB 2010, London 10th of June, 2010
  • 2. Organizational Training •contributing to the competitive advantage of organizations •traditional methodologies continue to dominate è ambiguous results •superiority of collaborative learning methods è“ hothouse for new ideas and thoughts” (Schlager, Fusco & Schank, 2002)
  • 3. Community of Learning (CoL) •“engaging in collaborative learning and reflective practice involved in transformative learning” (Paloff & Pratt, 2003, p. 17) “ ins-and-outs” “ Expert” “ Novice” “ up-to-date”
  • 4. Diversity + sharing of experiences & effectively processing new information (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2004) — create varying degrees of anxiety è inhibiting cognitive functioning (Jehn, 1995)
  • 5. Hierarchial Position •“major obstacle to collaborative learning processes” (Romme, 1996) •ambiguous research results
  • 6. Research Hypothesis • H1: Positive Relationship between Hierarchical Position & Level of Activity (Edmondson, 2006; Owens, et al., 2000; Yates & Orlikowski, 1992) • H2: Positive Relationship between Hierarchical Position & Performance (Bunderson, 2003b; Gijselaers, et al., 2006;)
  • 7. Setting • Global training program (“ Economics” ) • 14 weeks of e-Learning • 30 CoLs • 264 participants – 90 “ Low”position – 100 “Middle”position – 74 “ High”position • asynchronous discussions forums: – Café-Talk – Content-Related (real-life tasks)
  • 8. Hierarchial Position & Level of Activity 18,00 16,00 14,00 12,00 Average Contributions 10,00 Café-Talk Forum Content-Related Forums Total 8,00 6,00 4,00 2,00 0,00 "Low" "Middle" "High" http://disney.go.com/toystory/#/characters
  • 9. Hierarchial Position & Performance 10,00 9,00 8,00 7,00 6,00 Average Grade Participation Grade 5,00 Exam Final Grade 4,00 3,00 2,00 1,00 0,00 "Low" Middle" "High" http://disney.go.com/toystory/#/characters
  • 10. Implications • better able to anticipate behaviour • valuable input to design collaborative activities •è “ hothouse for new ideas and thoughts” (Schlager, Fusco & Schank, 2002)
  • 11. Limitations & Future Research •“surface level measurements” (Stijbos, et al., 2006) •“subjective performance measurements” (DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010) èSocial Network Analysis èContent Analysis èCluster Analysis

×