NLC1 acted as one evenly participating group with no cliques, while NLC2 was initially directed by three central participants and did not operate as one group¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitativer2·q2
Currency · newest study 2007 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2010: local conditions change quickly
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? In NLC1 everybody was involved in the communication and no sub-groups or cliques formed, whereas NLC2 was directed by three central participants in the beginning phase. → de Laat 2007
Evidence¶
de Laat 2007¶
de Laat, M., Lally, V., Lipponen, L. & Simons, R.-J. (2007). Online teaching in networked learning communities: A multi-method approach to studying the role of the teacher. Instructional Science, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 257-286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-006-9007-0
q2 · i? · qualitative · r2
Sociogram and centrality analysis (in-/out-degree, UCINET) of interaction patterns per phase. A second observation records that NLC2 "seems in the beginning to be directed by three central participants and as a whole is not operating as one group", shown as a star shape later becoming more circular.
"Everybody is involved in the communication and there are no sub-groups or cliques being formed."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Learning and teaching processes in networked learning are not static but have different dynamics at various stages of collaborative work
- Both teachers remained peripherally active and concentrated their contributions on tutoring, with the experienced teacher also acting as a learner on an equal basis
- Primary students' wiki negotiation contains collaboration and reasoning keywords distributed throughout the interaction — related
- The NLC with the experienced teacher showed higher and more stable network density than the beginner's NLC, whose density dropped from 36% to 26% in the end phase — related
- In informal social scenes, AgentSchool generates plausible traces of peripheral participation, clique formation, aggressor-induced cohesion, and opinion-leader emergence consistent with classroom social theories — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
nlc1-even-participation-nlc2-star-shape |
title |
NLC1 acted as one evenly participating group with no cliques, while NLC2 was initially directed by three central participants and did not operate as one group |
description |
NLC1 acted as one evenly participating group with no cliques, while NLC2 was initially directed by three central participants and did not operate as one group |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2007 |
recheck_by |
2010 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — de-laat-2007 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.