REVISED ARTICLE TITLE: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INTERACTION MODELS IN LEARNER-CENTERED NETWORKS
Abstract
This survey article presents a comprehensive classification of learner-centered networks and models for analyzing interactions and collaboration among learners. The article provides essential attributes that constitute an interaction, such as multi-path relationships between nodes. Different types of networks, including ego networks, duocentric networks, triadic networks, and scale-free networks, are described. The article compares various interaction models to determine which models perform better in different cases, considering assumptions of distinguishability, homophily, network closure, bidirectional influence, transitivity, and centrality. The article also introduces the learner network interaction hierarchy, which characterizes the various interaction modeling forms in learner-centered social networks. Researchers interested in modeling collaboration and interaction among learners in group projects will benefit from this framework, as it can aid students, instructors, and curriculum developers in gaining insights into the evolution of activities during learning events
Keywords:
learner-centered networks, interaction models, collaboration, social networks, ego networks, duocentric networks, triadic networks, scale-free networks, learner network interaction hierarchy, distinguishability, homophily, bidirectional influence, transitivity, centralityDownloads
Published
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10959071Issue
Section
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Daniel Smith, Sophia Martinez, Alejandro Santos, Emily Johnson
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
S. Wasserman, K. Faust, et al., Social network analysis: Methods and applications.
E. Costello, Opening up to open source: looking at how moodle was adopted in higher education, Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning 28 (3) (2013) 187–200.
A. Horvat, M. Dobrota, M. Krsmanovic, M. Cudanov, Student perception of moodle learning management system: a satisfaction and signifi- cance analysis, Interactive Learning Environments 23 (4) (2015) 515–527.
J. Friska, Development of e-learning application as a learning media for production ecrite d´ ebutant.´
M. Machado, E. Tao, Blackboard vs. moodle: Comparing user experience of learning management systems, in: 2007 37th annual frontiers in education conference-global engineering: Knowledge without borders, opportunities without passports, IEEE, 2007, pp. S4J–7.
J. Little-Wiles, L. L. Naimi, Faculty perceptions of and experiences in using the blackboard learning management system., Conflict Resolution & Negotiation Journal (4).
F. Alturise, Evaluation of blackboard learning management system for full online courses in western branch colleges of qassim university, International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET) 15 (15) (2020) 33–51.
V. Obionwu, D. Broneske, A. Hawlitschek, V. Koppen, G. Saake, Sqlvalidator–an online student playground to learn sql, Datenbank-Spektrum¨ (2021) 1–9.
P. Gupta, S. Mallick, T. Mishra, Does social identity matter in individual alienation? household-level evidence in post-reform india, World Development 104 (2018) 154–172.
L. Gillett, Common ground: Urban architecture.
J. H. Turner, A theory of social interaction, Stanford University Press, 1988.
S. A. Memon, B. H. Hadikusumo, R. Y. Sunindijo, Using social interaction theory to promote successful relational contracting between clients and contractors in construction, Journal of Management in Engineering 31 (6) (2015) 04014095.
L. L. Peterson, B. S. Davie, Computer networks: a systems approach, Elsevier, 2007.
V. Cerf, R. Kahn, A protocol for packet network intercommunication, IEEE Transactions on Communications 22 (5) (1974) 637–648. doi:10.1109/TCOM.1974.1092259.
N. Gopalan, B. S. Selvan, TCP/IP ILLUSTRATED, PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., 2008.
S. Laisema, P. Wannapiroon, Collaborative learning model with virtual team in ubiquitous learning environment using creative problem solving process, arXiv preprint arXiv:1401.2232.
A. Dani, Students’ patterns of interaction with a mathematics intelligent tutor: Learning analytics application, arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.07284.
J. Lin, L. Zhang, M. He, H. Zhang, G. Liu, X. Chen, Z. Chen, Multi-path relationship preserved social network embedding, IEEE Access 7 (2019) 26507–26518.
U. Brandes, Network analysis: methodological foundations, Vol. 3418, Springer Science & Business Media, 2005.
F. Harary, The determinant of the adjacency matrix of a graph, Siam Review 4 (3) (1962) 202–210.18
T. Gossen, M. Kotzyba, A. Nurnberger, Graph clusterings with overlaps: Adapted quality indices and a generation model, Neurocomputing¨ 123 (2014) 13–22.
C. G. Akcora, B. Carminati, E. Ferrari, User similarities on social networks, Social Network Analysis and Mining 3 (3) (2013) 475–495.
C. G. Akcora, B. Carminati, E. Ferrari, Network and profile based measures for user similarities on social networks, in: 2011 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Information Reuse & Integration, IEEE, 2011, pp. 292–298.
E. Raad, R. Chbeir, A. Dipanda, User profile matching in social networks, in: 2010 13th International Conference on Network-Based Information Systems, IEEE, 2010, pp. 297–304.
D. Zhang, J. Yin, X. Zhu, C. Zhang, User profile preserving social network embedding, in: IJCAI International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2017.
Y. Yang, Y. Dong, N. V. Chawla, Predicting node degree centrality with the node prominence profile, Scientific reports 4 (1) (2014) 1–7.
D. P. Kennedy, G. L. Jackson, H. D. Green, T. N. Bradbury, B. R. Karney, The analysis of duocentric social networks: A primer, Journal of Marriage and Family 77 (1) (2015) 295–311.
K. Faust, A puzzle concerning triads in social networks: Graph constraints and the triad census, Social Networks 32 (3) (2010) 221–233.
V. Arnaboldi, M. Conti, A. Passarella, F. Pezzoni, Analysis of ego network structure in online social networks, in: 2012 International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2012 International Confernece on Social Computing, IEEE, 2012, pp. 31–40.
A. Sutcliffe, R. Dunbar, J. Binder, H. Arrow, Relationships and the social brain: integrating psychological and evolutionary perspectives, British journal of psychology 103 (2) (2012) 149–168.
D. Griffin, R. Gonzalez, Models of dyadic social interaction, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 358 (1431) (2003) 573–581.
L. Coromina, J. Guia, G. Coenders, A. Ferligoj, Duocentered networks, Social networks 30 (1) (2008) 49–59.
M. L. Knapp, J. A. Daly, Handbook of interpersonal communication, Sage, 2002.
L. Yu-Hui, H. Fei, Actor-partner interdependence model (apim): A model for dyadic data analysis, Advances in Psychological Science 18 (08)(2010) 1321.
R. L. Moreland, Are dyads really groups?, Small Group Research 41 (2) (2010) 251–267.
R. Gonzalez, D. Griffin, The correlational analysis of dyad-level data in the distinguishable case, Personal Relationships 6 (4) (1999) 449–469.
J. A. Olsen, D. A. Kenny, Structural equation modeling with interchangeable dyads., Psychological methods 11 (2) (2006) 127.
R. Gonzalez, D. Griffin, Dyadic data analysis.
R. S. Burt, Structural holes and good ideas, American journal of sociology 110 (2) (2004) 349–399.
D. A. Kenny, Models of non-independence in dyadic research, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 13 (2) (1996) 279–294.
D. A. Kenny, D. A. Kashy, W. L. Cook, Dyadic data analysis, Guilford Publications, 2020.
D. A. Kenny, D. A. Kashy, The design and analysis of data from dyads and groups.
D. A. Kenny, Terminology and basics of sem, Terminology.
D. Iacobucci, Everything you always wanted to know about sem (structural equations modeling) but were afraid to ask, Journal of Consumer Psychology 19 (4) (2009) 673–680.
J. Fox, Teacher’s corner: structural equation modeling with the sem package in r, Structural equation modeling 13 (3) (2006) 465–486.
L. Campbell, D. A. Kashy, Estimating actor, partner, and interaction effects for dyadic data using proc mixed and hlm: A user–friendly guide, Personal Relationships 9 (3) (2002) 327–342.
E. Woody, P. Sadler, Structural equation models for interchangeable dyads: being the same makes a difference., Psychological methods 10 (2) (2005) 139.
P. Spirtes, Latent structure and causal variables.
T. Ledermann, D. A. Kenny, The common fate model for dyadic data: variations of a theoretically important but underutilized model., Journal of Family Psychology 26 (1) (2012) 140.
R. Gonzalez, D. Griffin, Modeling the personality of dyads and groups, Journal of Personality 70 (6) (2002) 901–924. 19
D. A. Kenny, D. A. Kashy, W. L. Cook, The analysis of dyadic data (2006).
N. A. Card, P. C. Rodkin, C. F. Garandeau, A description and illustration of the triadic relations model: Who perceives whom as bullying whom?, International Journal of Behavioral Development 34 (4) (2010) 374–383.
H. Huang, J. Tang, L. Liu, J. Luo, X. Fu, Triadic closure pattern analysis and prediction in social networks, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 27 (12) (2015) 3374–3389.
M. Tsvetovat, A. Kouznetsov, Social Network Analysis for Startups: Finding connections on the social web, ” O’Reilly Media, Inc.”, 2011.
S. Uddin, L. Hossain, et al., Dyad and triad census analysis of crisis communication network, Social Networking 2 (01) (2013) 32.
B. Mazur, When is one thing equal to some other thing, Proof and other dilemmas: Mathematics and philosophy (2007) 221–242.
B. Mazur, K. Rubin, A. Silverberg, Twisting commutative algebraic groups, Journal of Algebra 314 (2007) 419–438.
P. W. Holland, S. Leinhardt, The statistical analysis of local structure in social networks (1974).
J. Moody, Matrix methods for calculating the triad census, Social Networks 20 (4) (1998) 291–299.
R. S. Burt, Structural holes versus network closure as social capital, in: Social capital, Routledge, 2017, pp. 31–56.
T. Song, Q. Tang, J. Huang, Triadic closure, homophily, and reciprocation: an empirical investigation of social ties between content providers, Information Systems Research 30 (3) (2019) 912–926.
M. Gargiulo, G. Ertug, C. Galunic, The two faces of control: Network closure and individual performance among knowledge workers, Administrative Science Quarterly 54 (2) (2009) 299–333.
T. Q. Peng, Z.-Z. Wang, Network closure, brokerage, and structural influence of journals: a longitudinal study of journal citation network in internet research (2000–2010), Scientometrics 97 (3) (2013) 675–693.
G. Kossinets, D. J. Watts, Empirical analysis of an evolving social network, science 311 (5757) (2006) 88–90.
D. Easley, J. Kleinberg, et al., Networks, crowds, and markets: Reasoning about a highly connected world, Significance 9 (1) (2012) 43–44.
B. Zhang, P. A. Pavlou, R. Krishnan, On direct vs. indirect peer influence in large social networks, Information Systems Research 29 (2) (2018) 292–314.
A. V. Mantzaris, D. J. Higham, Infering and calibrating triadic closure in a dynamic network, in: Temporal networks, Springer, 2013, pp. 265–282.
H. Louch, Personal network integration: transitivity and homophily in strong-tie relations, Social networks 22 (1) (2000) 45–64.
T. Opsahl, Triadic closure in two-mode networks: Redefining the global and local clustering coefficients, Social networks 35 (2) (2013) 159–167.
H. Yin, A. R. Benson, J. Ugander, Measuring directed triadic closure with closure coefficients, Network Science 8 (4) (2020) 551–573.
P. Dillenbourg, S. Lemaignan, M. Sangin, N. Nova, G. Molinari, The symmetry of partner modelling, International Journal of Computer- Supported Collaborative Learning 11 (2) (2016) 227–253.
C. F. Bond, D. A. Kenny, E. Horn Broome, J. J. Stokes-Zoota, F. D. Richard, Multivariate analysis of triadic relationst, Multivariate behavioural research 35 (3) (2000) 397–426.
R. L. Sandefur, E. O. Laumann, A paradigm for social capital, Rationality and society 10 (4) (1998)
–501.
Z. Maoz, Preferential attachment, homophily, and the structure of international networks, 1816–2003, Conflict Management and Peace Science 29 (3) (2012) 341–369.
A. De Salve, B. Guidi, L. Ricci, P. Mori, Discovering homophily in online social networks, Mobile Networks and Applications 23 (6) (2018) 1715–1726.
A.-L. Barabasi, R. Albert, Emergence of scaling in random networks, science 286 (5439) (1999) 509– 512.´
C. Hauff, A. Nurnberger, Utilizing scale-free networks to support the search for scientific publications, in: Proceedings of the 6th Dutch-¨ Belgian Information Retrieval Workshop (DIR 2006), Delft, Citeseer, 2006, pp. 57–64.
O. Hein, M. Schwind, W. Konig, Scale-free networks, Wirtschaftsinformatik 48 (4) (2006) 267–275.¨
M. E. Newman, A.-L. E. Barabasi, D. J. Watts, The structure and dynamics of networks., Princeton university press, 2006.´
A.-L. Barabasi, E. Bonabeau, Scale-free networks, Scientific american 288 (5) (2003) 60–69.´
