NADEOSA
National Association for Distance Education and Open Learning in South Africa ,
18 – 19 August 2008, UP (Groenkloof Campus)
Benefiting from the Long Tail: UNISA Qualifications Online. Initial Thoughts i
on Inclusion, Space, Place and Social Network Learning within an Open
Distance Learning Model
by
Dr Andries du Plessis
Department of Information Science
UNISA
ABSTRACT
In light of its changing role as a distance education provider, the addition of a building at the
University of South Africa’s (UNISA) main entrance is aimed at controlling physical student
access to its Muckleneuk campus. Similarly, efforts to develop a virtual learning environment
(VLE) draw attention to challenges facing all learning institutions, regardless of their current
model of delivery. With the launch of myUnisa, steps towards the establishment of a
Learning Management Systems (LMS) based on the SAKAI platform have been taken, which
signal UNISA’s intent to continue using technology in innovative ways following the
institutional merger with Technikon RSA and VUDEC. Universities across the world are
faced with continuous technological changes, which explain their ongoing attempts to find
synergy with their delivery models. This positional paper touches on aspects related to the
virtualisation of course delivery at UNISA. It argues that despite the digital divide UNISA
should strive to increase its Information Communication Technology-capacity (ICT) in order
to offer complete online qualifications. By defining its Open Distance Learning (ODL)
strategy to incorporate complete online courses the reach of African knowledge can be
2
expanded through the Long Tail effect. This paper furthermore proposes that cognisance
needs to be taken of the latest developments in e-learning, i.e. social network learning. In
light of the growing importance of social networks generally, also in the workplace,
developments in network learning necessitate an understanding of social networks in order to
ensure lecturers are capable of ensuring inclusivity, meet student expectations and manage to
leverage value through peer-collaborative learning. In a modern knowledge-driven economy
reliant on ICT and characterised by the importance of vast networks, this is particularly
important considering two of UNISA’s areas of focus: African knowledge production and
African Indigenous Knowledge Systems.
3
TABLE of CONTENTS
1.
Background ................................................................................................... 4
2.
Aims with this Paper ..................................................................................... 7
3.
Changes in the Educational Landscape ........................................................ 8
3.1
Types of Virtualisation ................................................................................................... 11
3.2
3.1.1
Technological Virtualisation .............................................................................. 12
3.1.2
Geographical Virtualisation ................................................................................ 12
3.1.3
Organisational Virtualisation .............................................................................. 13
3.1.4
The Virtual and the Real ..................................................................................... 14
Social Networks and Learning: Where to with ODL and VLEs? .................................. 18
3.2.1
3.2.2
Social Networks and their Analysis.................................................................... 22
3.2.1.1
What is a Network? .......................................................................... 22
3.2.1.2
What is a Network Perspective? ....................................................... 22
3.2.1.3
Social Network Analysis (SNA) ...................................................... 23
3.2.1.4
What SNA Measure? ........................................................................ 23
3.2.1.5
SNA, the (virtual) Classroom and Social Network Learning ........... 24
Collaborative Learning as an Expression of Social Network Learning ............. 25
4.
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 26
5.
Bibliography ............................................................................................... 29
4
1.
BACKGROUND
The unique position of the University of South Africa (UNISA) as a distance education
provider in the South African tertiary sector puts it in a favourable position to give direction
to higher education. As a well-established educational institution with an international reach
serving approximately 300 000 students, it has an influential role and place at national,
regional and international levels. As could be expected, its influence goes beyond research,
curriculum matters, course content and assessment. Aspects related to didactics and delivery
models are equally emphasised -- the opening of the Institute for Open and Distance Learning
(IODL) on 5 May 2008, signals UNISA’s intention to give impetus to open distance learning
(ODL).
It is against the backdrop of changes in the South African educational landscape since 1994
and challenges facing all sectors of society that UNISA’s current efforts to transform itself
into “the African university of choice” can be placed -- its 2015 strategic plan outlines its
aims to inter alia play a significant role in African knowledge production and African
Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS); its reaction to change within a global context cannot
be denied either.
Knowledge production and Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) are strategically important
in a knowledge-driven economy -- competitiveness depends on access to knowledge
production resources and the protection of indigenous knowledge, to name but a few. Lapsing
in its role to produce and protect these and other strategically important knowledge-based
national assets, Higher Education Institutions (HEI) stand to fail the societies they endeavour
to serve.
Technological developments since the commercialisation of the Internet in the early 1990s
and the proliferation of the World Wide Web (WWW) thereafter continue to impact on the
nature of knowledge production and its dissemination. With it, advances in teaching and
learning through an array of applications, devices and services led to the virtualisation of
education: timelessness and placelessness resulted in a re-take of educational delivery
5
models, pedagogical considerations and didactical approaches. For example, current
sociotechnical studies concerned with education highlight the role of social networked
learning (Jones, 2004; Kling, McKim, & King, 2003), a current shift in focus in the elearning realm. These and other changes continue to shape educational markets and consumer
demands, forcing educational institutions to constantly adopt new strategies and revise their
business models.
The reality of the digital divide, however, perpetuate the gap between the have’s and have
nots which prohibit certain sectors of society from participating fully in the global
knowledge-driven economy (Akca, Sayili and Esengun 2007). It surely prohibits certain
sectors of society from reaping the true benefits of the Internet, WWW and advances in
teaching and learning that stem from technological developments in this regard. Reference to
this is again made later in this paper. Arguably, this disadvantage in terms of levels of
connectivity hampers HE institutions in countries affected negatively by the digital divide to
fulfil their mandate as producers and able participants in the international arena of research
and knowledge production.
However, despite the digital divide and its nuanced manifestations also in the developed
world (Tien and Fu 2008; Fuchs and Horak 2008), the wave of continuous technological
advances also resulted in changed perspectives about the notions of scarcity and exclusion by
introducing the abundance model (Scolbe). Through the reconsideration of “inclusion” by
employing the abundance model the opportunities that Information Communication
Technologies (ICTs) are offering HCIs like UNISA are multiple.
Abundance of choice, however, has with the increase in consumer power and changed
consumer patterns introduced fierce competition in all sectors of the economy, including
education. Vogles (2008), the Vice President and Chief Technology Officer of Amazon,
reflects on the large degree of uncertainty in the market due to increased competition:
6
“The general trend is a shift from push to pull. This is not only visible online and
in media production but also in many school systems where you are no longer
offered 50 courses but instead you get offered 400 courses of which you have to
pick 50. Education reflects the larger trend of connecting and pulling in
information.”
A careful look at changes in the educational market from a consumer perspective highlights
the impact of the maturing Net Generation. While not the focus of this paper, it is necessary
to take cognisance of it here. Carlson (2005:4) as cited by Barnes, Marateo, and Ferris (2007)
state that:
“Net Geners tend toward independence and autonomy in their learning styles,
which impacts a broad range of educational choices and behaviors, from "what
kind of education they buy" to "what, where, and how they learn."
Although ICT-based solutions and advances offer a wider consumer choice and intensified
competition amongst providers, it also leaves room for niche providers through the Long Tail
effect by turning Adam Smith's thoughts about behaviour within constraints into thoughts of
abundance as expressed by Gilder. The concept "long tail" is not new, having been used since
approximately 1946 in statistics to refer to “power-law” distributions. In 2004 Chris
Anderson, editor-in-chief of Wired, changed this statistical term into a noun, "The Long
Tail", to describe the niche strategy of businesses that sell a large number of unique items in
relatively small quantities as electronic commerce aggregates and makes profitable that
which were previously unprofitable transactions. An example is offered by Amazon and other
online booksellers, who obey a power-law distribution: there is a small number of very
popular books, which sell millions of copies, and then a long tail of less popular books
(Foremski, 2008; Anderson, 2008).
Arguably, in order to profit from the Long Tail effect, a business model in which ICTsolutions are fully embraced, together with a clear understanding of consumer demands and
consumption in online environments, are prerequisites. Business strategies aimed at
profiteering from the Long Tail hinge on interpretations of placelessness and timelessness,
7
uniqueness and specialisation around products and service; above all, abundance brought
about as a result of organisational virtualisation needs to be incorporated into the thinking.
2.
AIMS WITH THIS PAPER
This paper aims to:

briefly reflect on reactions to a changing higher education landscape with specific
reference to Open Distance Learning (ODL) at UNISA;

consider the role a LMS such as myUnisa (with capabilities to establish a VLE) plays
in terms of introducing the abundance model and redefining concepts such as “place”
and “space”;

investigate the opportunities offered by myUnisa and typical Web 2.0 features to
establish social network learning among students;

point out the growing importance of social networks in online learning environments
relying on typical Web 2.0;

draw attention to peer collaborative learning and social network analysis (SNA) as a
tool to gain insight into these networks;

outline how complete online courses could be beneficiary to UNISA by employing
business models associated with the New Economy, i.e abundance and the Long Tail
effect;

evaluate the importance of online qualifications with an African focus as part of
UNISA’s responsibility towards African knowledge production in a global
knowledge-driven economy.
8
3.
CHANGES IN THE EDUCATIONAL LANDSCAPE
Changes in the South African educational landscape are reflected in legislation that was
passed in 1997. The Higher Education Act 101 of 1997 aimed to:

establish a single co-ordinated higher education system and promote co-operative
governance

provide for programme-based higher education

restructure and transform programmes and institutions to respond better to the human
resource, economic and development needs of the country

redress past discrimination and ensure representivity and equal access

provide optimal opportunities for learning and the creation of knowledge

promote the values which underlie an open and democratic society based on human
dignity, equality and freedom, respect freedom of religion, belief and opinion

respect and encourage democracy, academic freedom, freedom of speech and
expression, creativity, scholarship and research

pursue excellence

promote the full realisation of the potential of every student and employee, tolerance
of ideas and appreciation of diversity

respond to the needs of the country’s needs and those communities it served

contribute to the advancement of all forms of knowledge and scholarship, in keeping
with international standards of academic quality.
9
In reaction to the above, adjustments had to be made at institutional levels. In the case of
UNISA, the University of South Africa (Private) Bill was introduced in 1997 to bring it in
line with the Higher Education Act, 1997. It states UNISA’s purpose and aims as a public
institution:
“… to provide higher education, to undertake research, to advance and
disseminate knowledge, to provide community services, to encourage the growth
and nurturing of cultural expression within the context of the South African
society, to further training and continuing education, to contribute to the social
and economic development of South Africa and to foster relationships in the
sphere of higher education with any person or institution, both nationally and
internationally.”
During the same period of profound change in South Africa, the benefits of technological
advances due to improvements in hardware and software, network connectivity, expansion of
the Internet and the proliferation of the World Wide Web (WWW) spread to an increasing
number of individuals and institutions across the world. Leaving no sector untouched,
education was to be affected too by this since disruptive technology. The Internet and WWW
led to the emergence of “virtual reality,” the “virtual office,” “virtual organisations”, and as
could be expected, the “virtual school" and "virtual university”. From almost every country in
the world, institutions extolled the virtues of virtual education (Willoughby, 2003: np;
Littlejohn & Sclater, 1999: 209).
During the last quarter of the 20th century and the beginning of the next, the introduction of
more complex e-learning systems necessitated adaptations to existing delivery models at all
educational levels (Engelbrecht 2003), i.e. secondary and tertiary levels. With the
introduction of anytime, anyplace learning education changed forever. Ever since, delivery
whether through the means of contact or distance tuition have either been changed to or
augmented with various electronic forms of delivery (Gunasekaran, McNeil and Shaul 2002).
This was to be expected, since e-learning is particularly suited for distance and flexible
learning (Fransceschi, Lee, & Hinds, 2008: 1530).
10
ICT-solutions aimed at the educational market offer numerous opportunities and have thus far
given rise to new educational institutions at both secondary and tertiary levels. Existing
institutions are affected too, albeit not necessarily in a positive manner: faced with new
challenges in a fast-changing landscape, poorer countries and resource-challenged institutions
are hampered by the realities of the digital divide. This is juxtaposed against an explosion in
policy studies, experiments in intergovernmental cooperative programs, and new initiatives in
virtual education by well resourced institutions, both private and public (Willoughby, 2003).
Understandably, a host of motivators compel universities in particular to invest in ICTsolutions. Some of the experiments with virtual learning solutions are driven by the desire of
quality universities to enhance their offerings and to differentiate themselves from lower tier
institutions (Bates, 1997; Go, 2004). Some are driven by upstart universities seeking costeffective means for expanding their student enrolments under conditions of constrained
resources, in competition with more established institutions. Others are founded on public
policy goals of expanding access to social groups previously excluded from tertiary
education. Of course, others desire to make money by serving new “markets” (Willoughby
2003).
One effect of the virtualisation of higher education is the globalisation of competition since
students can be reached anywhere, anytime. As is the case with the online and mass media
(Vogles 2008), applied to the HE sector this offers greater choice and introduce steep
competition. Finally, apart from prestige and (perceived) perceptions of quality, the ability to
offer financial aid programmes, flexible delivery modes and even tailor-made personal
(online) courses are some of the factors nowadays determining success in the HE market (Go,
2004).
11
Resource-challenged institutions that often find themselves on the wrong side of the digital
divide are furthermore affected by one of the principals Willoughby (2003) outlines
concerning the virtualisation of education, namely:
“In general, there is a positive relationship between the size of the gap between
the per capita wealth levels of two countries and the demand by students in the
poorer of the two countries for education from universities in the richer of the
two countries”.
This has a particular impact on HE institutions, especially those in developing countries if
students opt to enrol elsewhere. Lower student numbers obviously impact negatively on
revenue, with a knock-on affect regarding course offerings and research output (Tijssen
2007). Since knowledge production in the information age is a technologically aided activity
(Garrison and Anderson 2003), it impacts on a country’s competitiveness in the knowledge
production realm, which stems largely from HE institutions’ capacity to participate fully in
the international arena. The virtualisation of education seems inevitable.
3.1
Types of Virtualisation
Willoughby (2003) proposes that there are three separate but related modes of educational
virtualisation: technological virtualisation, geographical virtualisation and organisational
virtualisation. He argues that while each type of virtualisation can develop in its own right,
independently of the others, there are a number of practical forces at work that pressure most
universities to simultaneously combine more than one type of virtualisation. The real
challenge, according to Willoughby is for
…”educational managers and strategists to discern some general principles
governing the optimal pattern of the relationships between the three different
types of virtualisation.”
12
3.1.1 Technological Virtualisation
The use of technology to mediate the relationship between students, lecturers and the
facilities of an educational institution is not new. In this regard Willoughby mentions
examples such as the “School of the Air” in outback Australia, the use of two-way radio
systems, educational films and television broadcasts. Similar examples exist in South Africa,
such as the Learning Channel. What changed in recent years, however, are the complexity,
variety and ubiquity of technological media that make the contemporary situation distinctive.
Examples of various approaches to technological virtualisation include:

Web-enhanced conventional education

Conventional distance education techniques

Television-enhanced distance education

Uni-directional audio-visual instruction

Interactive audio-visual communication

Conventional distance education augmented by web-based services

Web-based delivery of conventional distance education

Interactive education on the web: asynchronous learning

Interactive education on the web: synchronous learning

Multi-media, mixed-mode, synchronous and asynchronous learning
3.1.2 Geographical Virtualisation
Experiments with technological virtualisation are often justified by the desire to provide
distance education to students. However, Willoughby points out that both the technological
and geographical virtualisation of education are conceptually distinct modalities.
Technological virtualisation can, and does, happen in programs where students and the
university are co-located. For example, some contact-tuition institutions require laptops for
purposes of interacting in a virtual classroom space. This practice is even extended to some
schools, which are generally known as laptop schools.
13
Needless to say, geographical virtualisation, which occurs when physical space mediates the
relationship between students, lecturers and facilities, may happen with or without
technological virtualisation.
Examples of geographical virtualisation include:

Single integrated campus (not virtual)

The virtualisation of university education

University with a main campus and some satellite facilities, under single public
jurisdiction

Multiple-campus university, under single public jurisdiction

Central campus with wide geographical distribution of students

Central campus with students clustered in one or more remote locations
3.1.3 Organisational Virtualisation
Inter-organisational arrangements are an important part of virtual education. In most real-life
cases of technological virtualisation and geographical virtualisation there is more than one
organization involved. Universities almost always enlist the help of other universities, or of
specialized service providers, to implement their virtualisation plans. Such arrangements
range from purchasing web-based educational software and infrastructure services from
independent technology companies, to cooperating with a foreign university for access to
suitable classroom facilities for offshore programs, or even to contracting out the delivery of
entire degree programs to other educational organisations, through franchising agreements of
various kinds. In short, organisational virtualisation may also be seen as a central part of a
university’s strategy for implementing technological virtualisation and geographical
virtualisation.
As stated earlier, organisational virtualisation of university education may be defined as the
mode of delivering education that exists when a third party mediates the relationship between
students and lecturers.
14
The basic categories of organisational virtualisation outlined by Willoughby include:

Integrated sole venture (conventional university management system)

Sole venture, with some non-academic services contracted-out

Sole venture, with some academic services contracted-out

Joint venture with another university, subservient venture partner

Joint venture with another university, equal venture partners

Joint venture with a non-academic institution, “equal” venture partners

Meta-program based on a group of geographically distributed universities

Joint venture between co-located but academically distinct universities
3.1.4 The Virtual and the Real
A large number of authors and studies from an array of subject fields have since the early1990s embarked upon a continuous investigation into numerous aspects of the digital age,
such as virtuality and cyberspace, e-commerce, and communication, to name but a few.
Often-cited studies include that of Castells (2004), Rheingold (1994), Shields (2003), Jones
(1994), Turkle (1995), Sproull and Kielser (1991) and more recently Boyd (2008).
In particular, studies of the characteristics of communication in virtual environments (VE),
differences between synchronous and asynchronous communication, communication
strategies and user experiences, user identity, trust and information exchanges add to our
understanding of the impact of cyberspace and virtual reality on society.
Lately, social networks and social network analysis of online communities have begun to
draw considerable attention since the stellar rise in popularity of social network sites like
Facebook, MySpace and Friendster, and video sharing sites such as YouTube and Flickr. The
value that is being attached social networks (SN) is highlighted by Tim Bernes-Lee, the
inventor of the WWW, who reflected on the emergence of the Social Graph against the
backdrop of continuous discussions about Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web (Boyd, 2008;
Wesch, 2008).
15
As has been mentioned at the outset of this paper, the effects of the digital divide (seen in
context as yet another manifestation of continued inequalities amongst the wealthier countries
and the poorer ones) can be seen in levels of Internet penetration. In Africa, Internet
penetration is among the lowers in the world.
Figure 1: Internet Users in Africa, March 2008
(Source: www.internetworldstats.com)
Internet penetration per country in Africa (March 2008) is illustrated below.
Figure 2: Top 10 Internet Countries (millions of Users) March 2008
(Source: www.internetworldstats.com)
16
In 2006, as illustrated in the table below, Internet penetration in South Africa was 10%.
Figure 3: South Africa: Internet Usage and % Penetration
(Source: http://www.internetworldstats.com/af/za.htm)
Recently, with advances in cell phone technology, progress has been made in terms of phone
connectivity. According to Prensky (2005), cell penetration in some countries—including the
United Kingdom, Italy, Sweden, and the Czech Republic— is greater than 100%, which
means that individuals own and use two or more of these devices. Cell phone penetration in
Asia continues to climb: Hong Kong and Taiwan have already surpassed 100% according to
one prominent survey, and several years ago, it was reported that more than 90% of Tokyo
high schoolers carried mobile phones. Usage is increasing wildly across the globe, notably
where relatively inexpensive cell systems bring service to areas without land lines. In
Botswana, roughly one of every four citizens owned a mobile phone by 2002. Moreover,
students in China, the Philippines, and Germany are using their mobile phones to learn
English, to study math, health, and spelling and to access live and archived university
lectures, respectively. The possibilities for the educational sector might not always be realised
immediately, but they are surely many. (Prensky, 2005).
At the end of 2007 there were 280.7 million mobile phone subscribers in Africa, representing
a penetration rate of 30.4%. The chart below shows the historical numbers up until 2007, with
projected growth and penetration rates through 2012.
17
Figure 4 Africa -- Mobile Phone penetration
(Source: http://whiteafrican.com/2008/08/01/2007-african-mobile-phone-statistics/)
Figure 5 Africa - Major Mobile Markets
(Source: http://whiteafrican.com/2008/08/01/2007-african-mobile-phone-statistics/)
The effects of the digital divide on Africa must be seen against the technological advances
made in recent years. Generally referred to as Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web, a development
of particular importance has been the introduction of XML which split content and form;
content can easily be sourced from anywhere else, shared, distributed and so forth. Gaining a
18
deeper understanding of these developments is imperative (Wesch, 2008) in lure of its impact
on knowledge dissemination, user participation and the scale of modern online social
networks, amongst many other consequences.
In many respects, the boundaries between the virtual plane and reality has become seamless,
thus expanding the reaches of the Internet and its impact on humanity beyond anything that
we could have imagined thus far. As for the impact on learning and education, the seamless
mashup of various platforms and delivery vehicles in what can only be described as a
learnspace will become clearer in time. However, without a doubt, the technological frontier
has again leapfrogged, shifting the goalposts once more.
3.2
Social Networks and Learning: Where to with ODL and VLEs?
With the introduction of distance education, place and space was impacted upon in terms of
when and where learning can take place; web-based courses via feature-packed VLEs impact
on pedagogy and didactical consideration by adding a level of richness to people interacting
in digital learnspaces. Understandably, content development, assessment strategies and ways
to engage with students draw particular attention among members of staff who embark on the
virtualisation of their courses (Gonzales and Sujo de Montes 2001).
It is evident from an analysis of the special technological opportunities provided by a digital
learning environment that the wide and indeterminate learning space behind the screen of a
computer can be subdivided into different learning spaces (Peters 1999). Mindful of
Friensen’s exploration of “the last two feet” between the screen and the student, finding a
balanced mix between these technological-driven virtual learnspaces and more traditional
modes of delivery necessitates careful planning and a deep understanding of how teaching
and learning take place in such mixed learnspaces (Engelbrecht 2003: 38).
Following the institutional merger between Technikon RSA, Vista University’s Distance
Education Campus (VUDEC) and UNISA, a LMS called myUnisa based on the SAKAI
platform was developed. With this, the university signalled its intention to keep on using
technology to enhance its delivery model. This is echoed in statement documents such as
19
UNISA's 2015 strategic plan and documentation related to its ODL model. This is
encouraging, since social network learning as achieved inter alia through peer-collaborative
learning cannot be considered without the necessary ICT-base in place.
The recently established IODL is tasked with developing the ODL-model and to adapt the
current distance tuition model. What is, however, lacking at this point in time – perhaps
understandably so -- is a clear vision with regard to using the myUnisa LMS to offer
complete qualifications online. Although ICT-solutions are mentioned in documents
alongside discussions about ODL, this does not necessarily mean that complete online
courses are out of the question. However, currently individual departments use myUnisa to
merely enhance their paper-based content. This too is, however, not standard practice among
all departments. Clearly then, giving direction to and taking the first steps towards offering
complete online qualifications with an African focus will necessitate an e-learning strategy
(Brandon, 2007). In the case of UNISA, this will be set within the framework of an ODLmodel.
Some time ago, Engelbrecht (2003) also argued for clarity in an e-learning strategy at
UNISA. At the time she remarked that most early adapters of e-learning “have sorted out
their technology infrastructure and electronic administrative and library services and are now
addressing pedagogical issues.” Taking note of continued technological developments and
efforts to introduce ICT-solutions for educational purposes, this paper argues that by offering
complete online qualifications within the ODL-model using myUnisa and its associated Web
2.0 features will boost UNISA’s efforts to become “the African university” of choice in
service of African knowledge production.
Interaction in all its forms (between and among students, students and lecturers, students and
content) is an essential element in the learning process (Moore 1993:20; Laurrillard
2000:137; Palloff & Pratt 1999). Engelbrecht (2003) cites Garrison & Anderson (2003:115)
who state that e-learning has the capacity to support interaction as "the true uniqueness of elearning lies in its multidimensional forms of communication and interaction (i.e.
simultaneous intimacy and distance; multi-representational; hyper searchable) that are truly
multiplicative. Students are able to assume control and directly influence outcomes".
20
Researchers in the field of e-learning have shifted their focus to online communication in the
e-learning environment, i.e. the facilitation of online interaction, effective use of online
communication tools, the adoption of online communication and methods of motivating
learners to participate (Blignaut & Trollip, 2003).
The educational landscape is becoming increasingly complex, not least due to technological
advances such as Web 2.0, virtual worlds and social networking practices. If one considers
one of the first online communities, the Well, one has to appreciate the amount of
development that has taken place over the last decade (Rheingold, 1993). Advances in portal
technology, such as Microsoft’s Learning Gateway and Open Source solutions (e.g. Moodle,
SAKAI) all contribute to the speed and ease with which educational providers can deploy
LMSs which incorporate the latest Web 2.0 technologies.
In order to understand this growing complexity, lecturers and support staff responsible for
content development require an understanding of the features of the technological solutions
available to them, such as the effective use of asynchronous forms of communication and
facilitation in online discussion forums. In these and other instances, clarity in terms of
quality standards and clear user guidelines are at times lacking (Clegg and Heap, 2006).
While some might take the view that instructional technology may be an end in itself rather
than a means to a greater conception of education, this paper argues that like any other
educational practice, the use of instructional technology will be most effective when it is
placed within a theoretical context. If learning is considered to be a function of expectation
and engagement of the student within the context of the learning experience (Harlow and
Cummings 2002), a social network approach to learning with its emphasis on inclusivity and
collaboration would be a sensible one. The Net Generation expect content delivery in ways
different from traditional forms: connectivity in virtual social spaces are imperative.
Learning theories, models and concepts help to make sense of the rich interplay between
people, technology, learning artefacts and learning processes. One such development in the
field of learning theories strives to provide an alternative to constructivism and behaviourism.
Connectivism (Siemens, 2005) is the integration of principles explored by chaos, network,
21
and complexity and self-organisation theories. Learning is a process that occurs within
nebulous environments of shifting core elements – not entirely under the control of the
individual. Learning (defined as actionable knowledge) can reside outside of ourselves
(within an organisation or a database), is focused on connecting specialised information sets,
and the connections that enable us to learn more are more important than our current state of
knowing.
An important notion is that connectivism is driven by the understanding that decisions are
based on rapidly altering foundations. New information is continually being acquired. The
ability to draw distinctions between important and unimportant information is vital. The
ability to recognise when new information alters the landscape based on decisions made
previously is also critical.
Arguably, network learning provides a useful framework which encompasses not only
pedagogy, but also the broader social, technical and cultural forces at play (Jones, 2004). The
network metaphor which Jones describes as, “… a unifying concept allowing us to bring
together apparently disparate elements of the field” (:81) cannot be ignored.
A community of inquiry provides the environment in which learners can take responsibility
for and control of their learning through interaction; it is a requisite for higher-order learning.
Given the information access and communication facilities of the Internet, an e-learning
environment has distinct advantages as a means of providing support to online communities
of inquiry to promote higher-order learning.
22
3.2.1 Social Networks and their Analysis
3.2.1.1 What is a Network?
A network is a set of dyadic ties, all of the same type, among a set of actors. Actors can be
persons, organisations, or any other entity. A tie is an instance depicting a social relation
between actors.
Actors form nodes connected by ties in a sociogram. Ties are representative of a particular
aspect or feature prevalent in the network. Computer networks, power grids, and social
networks all function on the simple principle that people, groups, systems, nodes, entities can
be connected and thus create an integrated whole, i.e. a network. Alterations within the
network have ripple effects on the whole, i.e. the importance of place and structure.
3.2.1.2 What is a Network Perspective?
One of the major differences with other kinds of social sciences data is that the network
perspective considers relations and not attributes (gender, race, income, age, etc). Individual
characteristics (attributes) are “half the story”. People influence each other, ideas and
materials flow, etc., which all depend on levels of connectivity and place/position within a
network: the structure of the network. The network perspective emphasises the importance of
structure vs composition; not just the elements of the system, but how they are put together.
The network perspective is thus non-reductionist, holistic and systemic. Since the network
perspective is based in structuralism, it is capable of considering group performance by
analysing network position. Subsequently, from position follows an identification of
opportunities and constraints, such as crosspoint which can also be a bottleneck.
The social network perspective encompasses theories, models and applications that are
expressed in terms of relations concepts and processes (Wasserman, et al., 2007:4). As such,
a growing interest and increased use of network analysis has led to consensus about central
principles, such as:
23

Actors and their actions are interdependent;

Relational ties (linkages) between actors are channels;

Network models focusing on individuals view the network structural environments as
providing opportunities for or constraints on individual action;

Network models conceptualise structure as lasting patterns of relations among actors
(Wasserman, et al., 2007).
3.2.1.3 Social Network Analysis (SNA)
A well-known social network researcher, Borgatti, describes SNA as:
“Network analysis is the study of social relations among a set of actors. It is a
field of study; a set of phenomena or data which we seek to understand. In the
process of working in this field, network researchers have developed a set of
distinctive theoretical perspectives as well. Some of the hallmarks of these
perspectives are:

focus on relationships between actors rather than attributes of actors

sense of interdependence: a molecular rather atomistic view

structure affects substantive outcomes

emergent effects

network theory is sympathetic with systems theory and complexity
theory.”
3.2.1.4 What does SNA Measure?
Social networks is characterised by a distinctive methodology encompassing techniques for
collecting data, statistical analysis, and visual representation. The most basic of this is that it
uses structural or relations information to study or test theories (Wasserman, et al., 2007).
24
Social Network Analysis focuses on the measurement of social relations. Social relations can
be thought of as dyadic attributes. Whereas mainstream social science is concerned with
monadic attributes (e.g. income, age, gender, race, etc.), network analysis is concerned with
attributes of pairs of individuals, of which binary relations are the main kind. We glean
insight into relations and the patterns of relations (social structures) rather than on the
attributes of actors (e.g. gender, race, age, qualifications, and cultural attributes).
The whole system of relations and parts of the system can be studied simultaneously, for
example lateral and vertical flows of information can be traced, sources and targets can be
identified and structural constraints operating on the flows of resources can be detected.
3.2.1.5 SNA, the (virtual) Classroom and Social Network Learning
Barabási states that “nodes always compete for connections because links represent survival
in an interconnected world” (2002, p.106). This competition is largely dulled within a
personal learning network, but the placing of value on certain nodes over others is a reality.
Nodes that successfully acquire greater profile will be more successful at acquiring additional
connections. In a learning sense, the likelihood that a concept of learning will be linked
depends on how well it is currently linked. Nodes (can be fields, ideas, communities) that
specialise and gain recognition for their expertise have greater chances of recognition, thus
resulting in cross- pollination of learning communities.
Weak ties are links or bridges that allow short connections between information. Our small
world networks are generally populated with people whose interests and knowledge are
similar to ours. Finding a new job, as an example, often occurs through weak ties, as
Granovetter proved in his ground-breaking work. This principle has great merit in the notion
of serendipity, innovation, and creativity. Connections between disparate ideas and fields can
create new innovations (Siemens, 2005).
25
Measuring student engagement and exploring levels of connectivity among them can be
achieved by employing SNA. Various measurements can be taken to describe ties among
actors: participation in the same discussion thread is perhaps the most obvious example in an
online learning environment. Approaches can vary from a complete network (whole class) to
an ego-network which will reveal the network from an actors’ (student) perspective. Other
measurements are possible, such as trust, popularity, or perceptions, i.e. who should be able
to answer the <xyz> concepts? The latter measurement can be juxstaposed against actual
student performance and whether fellow students’ perceptions about their classmates are
correct in terms of who knows what.
3.2.2 Collaborative Learning as an Expression of Social Network Learning
Network learning can manifest through peer-collaboration, a well-known concept in
education. In English it is understood as “working together” in particular in “writing and
study” (Webster 1953:524). Interestingly enough, the term “collaboration” is not found in all
languages. What this means in Germany is traditionally dealt with in connection with group
education and group instruction. Here the social relationships of the members of the group
are made into the medium for educational and didactical processes, which naturally includes
collaboration.
From the aspect of pedagogy, aims are followed such as the individual development and
maturity of the participants, their social integration, social responsibility, self-realisation
through interaction in a relatively control-free space, as well as helping them to copes with
their existence.
Seen didactically, an effort is made to use the advantages of group work and mutual help in
learning, e.g. in solving problems and imparting values and standards. Often, group
instruction is emphasised and supported, to modify block instruction (in classes), lectures and
individual work (self-studies). Partner work and learning in small groups and in project
groups have taken shape most strongly.
26
In the digital learning environment processes that serve these aims are termed collectively
“collaborative learning” (collaboration space). This is understood in general as “individual
learning occurring as a result of group processes” (Kaye 1992: 2), as in traditional didactics.
Naturally, what takes place here is virtual collaboration, which is why it has been described
paradoxically as “learning together apart” (Kaye 1992:1). The opening up of new working
and learning spaces is important for working with a fellow student, in small groups, but also
in extremely large groups, which enables completely new social forms of learning.
Central to collaborative learning in digital environments are computer conferences, and the
following forms of collaboration have developed using them as a foundation: the virtual
seminar, the on-line classroom, on-line games and simulations, and of course joint learning
and working projects such as, for example, knowledge building communities (Pan, Zhu, Hu,
Lun, & Zhou, 2005). Partner work should also be mentioned here, which may be a question
of the spontaneous solution of special problems, but also of jointly planning and resolving to
take a course (Tiwana & Bush, 2000).
4.
CONCLUSION
Barnes et al (2007) state that a decade ago (ca 1997), the first wave of the so-called Net
Generation began to enter the tertiary sector. This is currently forcing HE institutions to deal
with a new population of learners with unique characteristics, as pointed out earlier in this
paper.
Barnes et al (2007) furthermore state that in light of increasing numbers of Net Geners in
relation to the rest of the population, catering for the specific needs of this group of customers
has become imperative. They state:
27
“The challenge of evolving pedagogy to meet the needs of Net-savvy students is
daunting, but educators are assisted by the fact that this generation values
education. These students learn in a different way than their predecessors did,
but they do want to learn. In this article we will define the characteristics of Net
Geners' learning styles and discuss how educators can make the most of these
particular traits”.
Online universities are, according to national surveys in America, gaining in popularity
(Blumenstyk, 2008). This is not limited to the American population since similar trends are
evident in other parts of the world. HEIs -- with the aid of technologists, strategists,
pedagogues and educational technologists -- have therefore little choice but to contemplate
ways to find synergy between all the different modes of delivery, revise their strategies and
revisit their business models to offer products in a way that would satisfy demand.
In taking the first step towards addressing challenges facing HE institutions, Willoughby
(2003) outlines some basic business principles associated with the virtualisation of university
education. Clearly the choice of educational mode should not be driven by “naive and
uncritical acceptance of the latest technology.” Instead, Willoughby (2003) argues that the
choice of technologies and the choice of technical systems by universities should be driven
by pedagogical, organisational and geographic considerations, together with a “prudent
assessment of appropriate business models.”
This paper argues that despite the digital divide and its effects on Africa in particular,
complete qualifications online with an African focus via myUnisa will enable UNISA to offer
African knowledge to an international student body, thus tapping into markets not affected
negatively by the digital divide. Such an undertaking will necessitate a re-think of notions of
exclusivity and inclusivity by changing the views about student profile. The current view
excludes those who rely on the virtualisation of education to expand their knowledge.
Furthermore, by considering ways to benefit from the Long Tail effect, “Africannes” can be
offered as a niche or specialisation to the HE market, thereby satisfying those with a desire to
include international perspectives in their curricula (Little, Titarenko, & Bergelson, 2005).
28
Embracing ICT fully by offering complete qualifications online will contribute towards the
expansion of African knowledge in a global knowledge-driven economy. Apart from other
more traditional efforts to expand African knowledge production, this paper emphasises the
importance of an e-learning strategy within the ODL-model that would position UNISA as a
truly global distance education institution adhering to the needs of the 21st century learner –
many who might not necessarily be situated within the spatial boundaries of the African
continent itself.
29
5.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akca, H., M. Sayili, and K. Esengun. “Challenge of Rural People to Reduce Digital Divide in
the Globalized World: Theory and Practice.” Government Information Quarterly 24
(2007): 404-413.
Anderson, C. The Long Tail: The Tragically Neglected Economics of Abundance. 06 March
2005, http://www.thelongtail.com/the_long_tail/2005/03/the_tragically_.html
(Accessed August 10, 2008)
Barnes, K., R. Marateo, and S. Ferris. 2007. “Teaching and learning with the net generation”.
Innovate 3 (4).
Blumenstyk, G. “Online Universities Are Gaining Acceptance, Pollster Says”. The Chronicle
of Higher Education. 12 August 2008.
http://chronicle.com/daily/2008/08/4206n.htm (Accessed, August 12, 2008).
Brandon, B. (ed.). The eLearning Guild's Handbook of e-Learning Strategy. Edited by B
Brandon. Santa Rosa, California: The eLearning Guild, 2007.
Castells, M. The Network Society : A Cross-cultural Perspective. Edited by M Castells.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishers, 2004.
Clegg, P., and J. Heap. 2006. “Facing the challenge of e-learning: Reflections on Teaching
Evidence-Based Practice through Online Discussion Groups”. Innovate 2 (6).
Dhar, V, and A. Sundararajan. “Information Technologies in Business: A Blueprint for
Education and Research.” Information Systems Research (INFORMS) 18, no. 2
(2007): 125-141.
Downes, S. 2006. Places to Go: Sakai. Innovate 2 (3).
Engelbrecht, E. “A Look at e-learning Models: Investigating Their Value for Developing an
e-learning Stratgey.” Progressio 25, no. 2 (2003): 38-47.
Foremski, T. Long Tail Economics: Bonanza or Bogus? 20 March 2008,
http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2008/03/long_tail_econo.php
(accessed Augustus 10, 2008)
30
Fransceschi, KG, RM Lee, and D Hinds. “Engaging E-Learning in Virtual Worlds:
Supporting Group Collaboration.” Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences - 2008. IEEE, 2008. 1530-1605.
Fuchs, C., and E. Horak. “Africa and the Digital Divide.” Telematics and Informatics
(Elsevier) 28 (2008): 99-116.
Garrison, D.R., and T. Anderson. E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research
and Practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer, 2003.
Go, V. Evolution of the University Business Model and Infrastructure Planning due to
Technological Innovations. Massachusetts: MIT, 2004.
Gonzales, CL., and L. Sujo de Montes. “Effective Practices in Distance Education.”
Computers in the Schools (The Haworth Press) 18, no. 2/3 (2001): 61-77.
Gunasekaran, A., R.D. McNeil, and D. Shaul. “E-Learning: Research and Applications.”
Industrial and Commercial Training 34, no. 2 (2002): 44-53.
Harlow, S., and R. Cummings. “Technologies and Levels of Learning: A Gregory Bateson
Perspective.” Computers in the School (The Haworth Press, Inc.) 19, no. 1/2 (2002):
95-100.
Hartman, J., C. Dziuban, and P. Moskal. “Strategic Initiatives in the Online Environment:
Opportunities and Challenges.” On the Horizon (Emerald Group Publishing Limited)
15, no. 3 (2007): 157-168.
Jones, C. (2004), Networks and Learning; Communities, practices and the metaphor of
networks, ALT-J, 12 (1), 81-93
Jones, S (ed.). Cybersociety: Computer-mediated Communication and Community. Newbury
Park: Sage, 1994.
Kling, R. (2000). "Learning about information technologies and social change: The
contribution of social informatics." Information Society 16(3): 217-232.
Kling, R. and C. Courtright (2004). Group behaviour and learning in electronic forums: a
socio-technical approach. Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of
Learning. S. Barab, R. Kling and J. H. Gray. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University
Press: 91-119.
31
Kling, R., McKim, G. & King, A. (2003) A Bit More to It: Scholarly Communication Forums
as Socio-Technical Interaction networks, Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology 54(1) 47-67
Laurillard, D. (2005). E-learning in higher education. Changing Higher Education: The
Development of Learning and Teaching. P. Ashwin. Oxford, Routledge.
Little, CB, L Titarenko, and M. Bergelson. “Creating a Successful International DistanceLearning Classroom.” Teaching Sociology (American Sociological Association) 33,
no. 4 (Oct 2005): 355-370.
Littlejohn, A, and N Sclater. “The Virtual University as a Conceptual Model for Faculty
Change and Innovation.” Interactive Learning Environments (Swets & Zeitlinger) 7,
no. 2-3 (1999): 209-225.
Ono, H, and M. Zavodny. “Digital Inequality: A Five Country Comparison using Microdata.”
Social Science Research (Elsevier) 36 (2007): 1135-1155.
Pan, Z, J Zhu, W Hu, HP Lun, and X. Zhou. “Interactive Learning of CG in Networked
Virtual Environments.” Computers and Graphics (Elsevier) 29 (2005): 273-281.
Pisel, K. A Strategic Planning Process Model for Distance Education. 2008.
http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/summer112/pisel112.html (accessed
August 06, 2008).
Prensky, M. 2005. “What can you learn from a cell phone? Almost anything!” Innovate 1 (5).
Salmon, G. 2000. E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan
Page Limited.
Scott, J. (1991). Social Network Analysis. London: SAGE.
Shields, R. The Virtual. London: Routledge, 2003.
Siemens, G. elearnspace. Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. April 2005.
http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm (accessed August 02, 2008).
Sproull, L, and S. Kielser. Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked
Organization. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1991.
32
Sturm, F. Kemp, J. & van Wendel de Joode, R. (2004). Towards Strategic Management in
Collaborative Network Structures. In L. Camarinha-Matos, & H. Afsarmanesh,
Collaborative Networked Organizations: A Research Agenda for Emerging Business
Models. New York: Springer.
Sylvie, G. “Developing an Online Newspaper Business Model: Long Distance Meets the
Long Tail.” Austin, Texas: The University of Texas at Austin, 24 March 2008.
Tien, FF, and T Fu. “The Correlates of the Digital Divide and Their Impact on College
Student Learning.” Computers and Education (Elsevier) 50 (2008): 421-436.
Tijssen, R.J.W. “Africa's Contribution to the Worldwide Research Literature: New Analytical
perspectives, trends and performance indicators.” Scinetometrics 71, no. 2 (2007):
303-327.
Tiwana, A, and A Bush. “Peer-to-Peer Valuation as a Mechanism for Reinforcing Active
Learning in Virtual Communities: Actualizing Social Exchange Theory.” 33rd Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE, 2000. 1-10.
Turkel, S. Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1995.
Vogels, W. Werner Vogels: Everything Fails All the Time. 4 April 2008.
http://thenextweb.org/2008/04/04/werner-vogels-everything-fails-all-the-time/
(accessed August 07, 2008).
Wasserman, S, & Faust, K. (2007). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wellman, B. & (eds), B. S. (1988). Social Structures: A Network Approach. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Willoughby, KW. “The Virtualization of University Education: Concepts, Strategies and
Business Models.” Instructional Technology Forum, Discussion Paper # 75. Salt
Lake City, Utah: Gore School of Business, Westminster College, 2003.
33
i
With thanks to UNISA, Department of Information Science for sponsoring me to attend this conference.
Views expressed in this paper are my own and I take full responsibility for any omissions or factually
incorrect statements. I would furthermore like to thank those colleagues in other departments and
institutes at UNISA who were willing to provide me with information and insights.