Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using weak ties to understand the resource usage and sharing patterns of a professional learning community

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Social Network Analysis and Mining Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This research demonstrates the utility of the theory of weak ties for understanding the patterns of resource usage and sharing in an online professional learning community. Our context of study is a community of educators using and sharing teaching resources such as lesson plans, presentation slides and animations. We consider whether the deduced relationships between members of the community of educators constitute weak ties. A deduced relationship exists when two educators access the same resource. If these deduced relationships do constitute weak ties, then other theorized network properties should also be manifest, namely homophily and triadic closures. Our findings support these theoretical conjectures. Firstly, results indicate that the strength of a tie is directly proportional to the level of similarity between users in the network in terms of their propensity to use and share resources and their level of comfort with and use of technology (homophily property). Secondly, we found strong support for the triadic closure property (formation of a weak tie between unconnected nodes that share a common neighbor). Thus, we developed a computational model to predict the formation of weak ties via triadic closures with an accuracy of 97.8 %. Finally, we show that augmenting collaborative and hybrid recommender systems with our triadic closure prediction model can improve the performance of these systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Nodes in an information network are primarily pages. However, in some information networks such as Twitter, nodes can represent both pages and individuals.

  2. Erdos–Renyi is a frequently used mathematical model for generating random graphs.

References

  • Adomavicius G, Tuzhilin A (2005) Toward the next generation of recommender systems: a survey of the state-of-the-art and possible extensions. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 17(6):734–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akbar M, Shaffer CA, Fan W, Fox EA (2014) Recommendation based on deduced social networks in an educational digital library. In: IEEE/ACM joint conference on digital libraries (JCDL), 2014, IEEE, pp 29–38

  • Andronico A, Carbonaro A, Casadei G, Colazzo L, Molinari A, Ronchetti M (2003) Integrating a multi-agent recommendation system into a mobile learning management system. In: Proceedings of artificial intelligence in mobile system, pp 123–132

  • Arazy O, Kumar N, Shapira B (2009) Improving social recommender systems. IT Prof 4:38–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balabanović M, Shoham Y (1997) Fab: content-based, collaborative recommendation. Commun ACM 40(3):66–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bobadilla J, Serradilla F, Hernando A et al (2009) Collaborative filtering adapted to recommender systems of e-learning. Knowl Based Syst 22(4):261–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonhard P, Sasse M (2006) knowing me, knowing you using profiles and social networking to improve recommender systems. BT Technol J 24(3):84–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brzozowski MJ, Romero DM (2011) Who should I follow? Recommending people in directed social networks. In: ICWSM

  • Chenoweth K (2009) It can be done, it’s being done, and here’s how. Phi Delta Kappan 91(1):38–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choo E, Yu T, Chi M, Sun Y (2014) Revealing and incorporating implicit communities to improve recommender systems. In: Proceedings of the fifteenth ACM conference on Economics and computation, ACM, New York, pp 489–506

  • Clauset A, Newman ME, Moore C (2004) Finding community structure in very large networks. Phys Rev E 70(6):066,111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claypool M, Gokhale A, Miranda T, Murnikov P, Netes D, Sartin M (1999) Combining content-based and collaborative filters in an online newspaper. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGIR workshop on recommender systems, Citeseer, vol 60

  • Easley D, Kleinberg J (2010) Networks, crowds, and markets: reasoning about a highly connected world. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Ekstrand MD, Riedl JT, Konstan JA (2011) Collaborative filtering recommender systems. Found Trend Human Comput Interact 4(2):81–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flinders DJ (1988) Teacher isolation and the new reform. J Curric Superv 4(1):17–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghauth KI, Abdullah NA (2010) Learning materials recommendation using good learners ratings and content-based filtering. Educ Tech Res Dev 58(6):711–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golder SA, Yardi S, Marwick A, Boyd D (2009) A structural approach to contact recommendations in online social networks. In: Workshop on search in social media, SSM

  • Granovetter M (1983) The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. Sociol Theory 1(1):201–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter MS (1973) The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol 78(6):1360–1380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo S, Wang M, Leskovec J (2011) The role of social networks in online shopping: information passing, price of trust, and consumer choice. In: Proceedings of the 12th ACM conference on electronic commerce, ACM, New York, pp 157–166

  • Hall MA (1998) Correlation-based feature subset selection for machine learning. PhD thesis, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

  • Herlocker JL, Konstan JA, Terveen LG, Riedl JT (2004) Evaluating collaborative filtering recommender systems. ACM Trans Inform Syst (TOIS) 22(1):5–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang H, Tang J, Wu S, Liu L, et al (2014) Mining triadic closure patterns in social networks. In: Proceedings of the companion publication of the 23rd international conference on World wide web companion, International world wide web conferences steering committee, pp 499–504

  • Klašnja-Milićević A, Vesin B, Ivanović M, Budimac Z (2011) E-learning personalization based on hybrid recommendation strategy and learning style identification. Comput Educ 56(3):885–899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krebs VE (2002) Mapping networks of terrorist cells. Connections 24(3):43–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam XN, Vu T, Le TD, Duong AD (2008) Addressing cold-start problem in recommendation systems. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on ubiquitous information management and communication, ACM, New York, pp 208–211

  • Levin DZ, Cross R (2004) The strength of weak ties you can trust: the mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Manag Sci 50(11):1477–1490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liben-Nowell D, Kleinberg J (2007) The link-prediction problem for social networks. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 58(7):1019–1031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linden G, Smith B, York J (2003) Amazon.com recommendations: item-to-item collaborative filtering. IEEE Internet Comput 7(1):76–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lü L, Zhou T (2011) Link prediction in complex networks: a survey. Physica A 390(6):1150–1170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lü L, Jin CH, Zhou T (2009) Similarity index based on local paths for link prediction of complex networks. Phys Rev E 80(4):046,122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manouselis N, Vuorikari R, Van Assche F (2010) Collaborative recommendation of e-learning resources: an experimental investigation. J Comput Assist Learn 26(4):227–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massa P, Avesani P (2004) Trust-aware collaborative filtering for recommender systems. In: On the move to meaningful internet systems 2004: CoopIS, DOA, and ODBASE, Springer, New York, pp 492–508

  • McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Rev Sociol 27:415–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nevin AI, Thousand JS, Villa RA (2009) Collaborative teaching for teacher educators what does the research say? Teach Teacher Educ 25(4):569–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okoye I, Maull K, Foster J, Sumner T (2011) Educational recommendation in an informal intentional learning system. Educational recommender systems and technologies: practices and challenges: practices and challenges, p 1

  • Rajaraman A, Ullman JD, Ullman JD, Ullman JD (2012) Mining of massive datasets, vol 77. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Recker MM, Walker A, Lawless K (2003) What do you recommend? Implementation and analyses of collaborative information filtering of web resources for education. Instr Sci 31(4–5):299–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romero DM, Kleinberg JM (2010) The directed closure process in hybrid social-information networks, with an analysis of link formation on twitter. In: ICWSM

  • Sahebi S, Cohen WW (2011) Community-based recommendations: a solution to the cold start problem. In: Workshop on recommender systems and the social web, RSWEB

  • Schein AI, Popescul A, Ungar LH, Pennock DM (2002) Methods and metrics for cold-start recommendations. In: Proceedings of the 25th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, ACM, New York, pp 253–260

  • Shani G, Gunawardana A (2011) Evaluating recommendation systems. In: Recommender systems handbook, Springer, New York, pp 257–297

  • Simpson RL, Lacava PG, Graner PS (2004) The no child left behind act challenges and implications for educators. Interv School Clin 40(2):67–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sintos S, Tsaparas P (2014) Using strong triadic closure to characterize ties in social networks. In: Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, ACM, New York, pp 1466–1475

  • Sisario B (2011) New service offers music in quantity, not by song. The New York Times, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sumner T, Team C (2010) Customizing science instruction with educational digital libraries. In: Proceedings of the 10th annual joint conference on Digital libraries, ACM, New York, pp 353–356

  • Ye L, Recker M, Walker A, Leary H, Yuan M (2015) Expanding approaches for understanding impact: integrating technology, curriculum, and open educational resources in science education. Educ Tech Res Dev 63(3):355–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zielinski AE, Hoy WK (1983) Isolation and alienation in elementary schools. Educ Adm Q 19(2):27–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper is based upon research supported by National Science Foundation awards #1043638 and #1147590 of the University of Colorado Boulder and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Cognitive Science, Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA

    Ogheneovo Dibie & Tamara Sumner

Authors
  1. Ogheneovo Dibie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tamara Sumner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ogheneovo Dibie.

Appendix: CCS pre-deployment survey questionnaire

Appendix: CCS pre-deployment survey questionnaire

This section outlines 37 questions that were asked to CCS’s participants as part of a pre-deployment survey questionnaire before the 2011–2012 school year. These questions were grouped under the following six categories:

  1. 1.

    Class size

  2. 2.

    Years teaching

  3. 3.

    Class needs

  4. 4.

    Level of comfort and use of technology when teaching

  5. 5.

    Perceived level of isolation

  6. 6.

    Propensity to use and share resources

Here are the questions that were asked under each of these categories

1.1 Years teaching

  1. 1.

    The following question is for statistical purposes ONLY. Including the current school year, how many years of total teaching experience do you have?

  2. 2.

    The following question is for statistical purposes ONLY. Including the current school year, how many years of total teaching experience in Earth science do you have?

1.2 Class size

  1. 1.

    What is your average Earth science class size?

1.3 Level of comfort and use of technology when teaching

Rate your frequency of use of the following computer technologies (options: Rarely, A few times per semester, A few times per month, A few times per week, Daily)

  1. 1.

    Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, PowerPoint) or similar programs

  2. 2.

    An Internet search engine (e.g., Google, Yahoo!)

  3. 3.

    A digital library (e.g., NSDL, DLESE)

  4. 4.

    A favorite Web site (e.g., NASA, NSTA, other)

  5. 5.

    A social networking site (e.g., LinkedIn, Facebook, MySpace, other)

  6. 6.

    A streaming video site (e.g., YouTube, TeacherTube) wife died and he wrote Paradise Regained

  7. 7.

    The Curriculum Customization Service (CCS)

  8. 8.

    District or school made sites.

Rate your level of comfort with using the following computer technologies in your instruction (options: Uncomfortable, Neutral, Comfortable, Very comfortable):

  1. 1.

    Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, PowerPoint) or similar programs

  2. 2.

    An Internet search engine (e.g., Google, Yahoo!)

  3. 3.

    A digital library (e.g., NSDL, DLESE)

  4. 4.

    A favorite Web site (e.g., NASA, NSTA, other)

  5. 5.

    A social networking site (e.g., LinkedIn, Facebook, MySpace, other)

  6. 6.

    A streaming video site (e.g., YouTube, TeacherTube)

  7. 7.

    The Curriculum Customization Service (CCS)

  8. 8.

    Other (specify below).

1.4 Propensity to use and share resources

In their previous semester of teaching, participants were asked about to assign a frequency to the following questions (options: Rarely, A few times per semester, A few times per month, A few times per week, Daily)

  1. 1.

    How often do you used materials created by other Earth science educators in your district?

  2. 2.

    How often do you look at materials created by other Earth science educators in your district for inspiration?

  3. 3.

    How often did you share materials that you created such as handouts, PowerPoint slides, and rubrics—with other educators in your district?

  4. 4.

    I have felt very comfortable sharing my materials and ideas with other Earth science educators in my district.

  5. 5.

    It has been easy to share materials and ideas with other Earth science educators in my district.

  6. 6.

    Do you agree with the following question: Sharing best practices and good ideas has been a routine practice among Earth science educators in my district (options: Strong disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree).

1.5 Perceived level of isolation

Participants were asked to rate on a 5 point scale from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree on the following questions:

  1. 1.

    I have opportunity to interact with other Earth science teachers in my school

  2. 2.

    I have opportunities to interact with other Earth science teachers in my district

  3. 3.

    I have opportunities to attend workshops and/or conferences

  4. 4.

    I have a strong awareness of the curriculum practices of other Earth science teachers in my district

  5. 5.

    I have a strong awareness of the classroom instruction practices of other Earth science teachers in my district

  6. 6.

    I have a strong understanding of how other Earth science educators in my district use interactive resources in their teaching.

1.6 Class needs

Participants were asked to rate on a 5 point scale from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree their agreement with the following questions when selecting materials for Earth science instruction. I need to consider the specific learning needs of these students:

  1. 1.

    Individual or clusters of students with different knowledge, skills, or abilities

  2. 2.

    Students with different reading abilities (e.g., ELA or Special Ed)

  3. 3.

    Students with different quantitative skills

  4. 4.

    Students with different cultural backgrounds and life experiences

  5. 5.

    Gifted and talented students

  6. 6.

    Select which of the following describes your level of control in regard to curriculum of your classroom.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dibie, O., Sumner, T. Using weak ties to understand the resource usage and sharing patterns of a professional learning community. Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. 6, 27 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-016-0335-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-016-0335-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation