The sharing of wonderful ideas : influence and interaction in Online Communities of Creators

This thesis presents a new framework for understanding how communities of creators share work, influence one another's creative processes, and learn from one another. I introduce the concept of Online Communities of Creators (OCOCs), which are online communities where the core activity is sharing personal creations. These communities can play an important part in the development of the Creative Society by providing venues for people to encourage each other's creative processes and output. By fostering each other's desires to create and share, these communities help individuals to experience the joy of designing, creating, and sharing. Through these explorations, people develop skills important to their personal development and their ability to participate in the modern workplace. I analyze how ideas spread through OCOCs using the framework for diffusion of innovation developed by Everett Rogers. I map specific behaviors in OCOCs to Roger's five stages of adoption of innovation: awareness, interest, evaluation, trial and adoption. Within OCOCs each of these stages represent deepening understanding of other community members' work. Using a mixed-methods approach of ethnography and social network analysis, I study two specific OCOCs: the Computer Clubhouse Village and the Scratch online community. Both of these communities are designed to facilitate learning with computers. The Village enables members of network of socially-supported computer clubs to share their work, their concerns, and their selves. The Scratch site is a new web community for people sharing work created with the Scratch programming environment. The thesis focuses on four topics: forms of participation, network diffusion of ideas, individuals' adoption of ideas, and identifying influentials. I report on how different social and project-related participation support the communities. I discuss how a particular technology I developed diffused through an OCOC. I analyze which community members' projects enter the "trial" stage of adoption. Finally I describe what creator and project factors predict influence in OCOCs. As I considered the various research topics this thesis addresses, I created technologies and developed some design guidelines for OCOCs. I introduce two of these technologies -the Village Profile Survey and the Village Visualizerand describe the motivation, design, and impact of these tools. I also describe a design philosophy that motivates these and other projects I have worked on and outline both design principles and ethnical concerns for the development of OCOCs. Thesis Supervisor: Mitchel Resnick Title: LEGO Papert Professor of Learning Research

[1]  Thierry Chanier,et al.  How Social Network Analysis can help to Measure Cohesion in Collaborative Distance-Learning , 2003, CSCL.

[2]  Mark S. Granovetter.  T H E S T R E N G T H O F WEAK TIES: A NETWORK THEORY REVISITED , 1983 .

[3]  Kai Hakkarainen,et al.  Patterns of Interaction in Computer-Supported Learning: A Social Network Analysis , 2000 .

[4]  A. Lenhart,et al.  Teens, privacy and online social networks: How teens manage their online identities and personal information in the age of MySpace , 2007 .

[5]  Fernanda B. Viégas,et al.  The chat circles series: explorations in designing abstract graphical communication interfaces , 2002, DIS '02.

[6]  Jeffrey Heer,et al.  prefuse: a toolkit for interactive information visualization , 2005, CHI.

[7]  Mark S. Granovetter.  The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[8]  Andrea A. diSessa,et al.  Changing Minds: Computers, Learning, and Literacy , 2000 .

[9]  E. Ackermann.  Piaget ’ s Constructivism , Papert ’ s Constructionism : What ’ s the difference ? , 2001 .

[10]  J. Carpendale,et al.  Kohlberg and Piaget on Stages and Moral Reasoning , 2000 .

[11]  Mitchel Resnick,et al.  Scratch: A Sneak Preview , 2004 .

[12]  Peter Cebon,et al.  Swarm Creativity: Competitive Advantage Through Collaborative Innovation Networks , 2006 .

[13]  Mitchel Resnick,et al.  Computer as Paintbrush: Technology, Play, and the Creative Society , 2006 .

[14]  Marlene Scardamalia,et al.  Computer Support for Knowledge-Building Communities , 1994 .

[15]  Danah Boyd,et al.  Vizster: visualizing online social networks , 2005, IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, 2005. INFOVIS 2005..

[16]  N. Lin.  Buidling a Network Theory of Social Capital , 1999, Connections.

[17]  Mitchel Resnick,et al.  MultiLogo: A Study of Children and Concurrent Programming , 1990, Interact. Learn. Environ..

[18]  Erno Lehtinen,et al.  Evaluating CSCL log files by social network analysis , 1999, CSCL.

[19]  Kirk Job-Sluder.  Automated social network analysis as a tool for evaluating sociability , 2006 .

[20]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .

[21]  Kathy Hirsh-Pasek,et al.  Play = Learning: How Play Motivates and Enhances Children's Cognitive and Social-Emotional Growth , 2006 .

[22]  J. Wolak,et al.  Online Victimization of Youth : Five Years Later. , 2006 .

[23]  Mitchel Resnick,et al.  Moose crossing: construction, community, and learning in a networked virtual world for kids , 1997 .

[24]  Marina Umaschi Bers,et al.  Zora: a graphical multi-user environment to share stories about the self , 1999, CSCL.

[25]  Susanne Seitinger,et al.  A new playground experience: going digital? , 2006, CHI EA '06.

[26]  Donald A. Schön,et al.  The Computer Clubhouse: Technological Fluency in the Inner City , 1998 .

[27]  Amanda A. Madden.  Teen Content Creators and Consumers , 2005 .

[28]  Penelope Leach,et al.  Your Baby and Child: From Birth to Age Five , 1978 .

[29]  Daniel A. McFarland,et al.  Motives and Contexts of Identity Change: A Case for Network Effects , 2005 .

[30]  Daniel C. Edelson,et al.  A design for effective support of inquiry and collaboration , 1995, CSCL.

[31]  Herbert F. Lionberger,et al.  How farm people accept new ideas , 1955 .

[32]  Elisabeth Sylvan.  Who knows whom in a virtual learning network?: applying social network analysis to communities of learners at the computer clubhouse , 2006 .

[33]  R. J. Bogumil,et al.  The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action , 1985, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[34]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[35]  A. Collins,et al.  Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning , 1989 .

[36]  Linton C. Freeman,et al.  Carnegie Mellon: Journal of Social Structure: Visualizing Social Networks Visualizing Social Networks , 2022 .

[37]  P. V. Marsden,et al.  NETWORK DATA AND MEASUREMENT , 1990 .

[38]  Allan Collins,et al.  Learning Communities in Classrooms: Advancing Knowledge For a Lifetime , 1999 .

[39]  Janet L. Kolodner,et al.  Learning by Design from Theory to Practice , 1998 .

[40]  D. Winnicott.  Playing and Reality , 1971 .

[41]  Mitchel Resnick,et al.  Pianos not stereos: creating computational construction kits , 1996, INTR.

[42]  Fernanda B. Viégas,et al.  Visualizing email content: portraying relationships from conversational histories , 2006, CHI.

[43]  Nancy Butler Songer,et al.  Exploring learning opportunities in coordinated network-enhanced classrooms: A case of kids as global scientists. , 1996 .

[44]  Vivian Gussin Paley,et al.  You Can't Say You Can't Play , 1992 .

[45]  Marko Čupić,et al.  Online communities – Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability , 2003 .

[46]  Jenny Preece,et al.  Online Communities: Designing Usability and Supporting Sociability , 2000 .

[47]  Mitchel Resnick,et al.  Meme tags and community mirrors: moving from conferences to collaboration , 1998, CSCW '98.

[48]  Daniel A. McFarland.  Student Resistance: How the Formal and Informal Organization of Classrooms Facilitate Everyday Forms of Student Defiance1 , 2001, American Journal of Sociology.

[49]  R. G. Baird.  High Technology and Low-Income Communities , 1999, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[50]  Seymour Papert,et al.  Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas , 1981 .

[51]  Jeff Klann,et al.  Folk computing: revisiting oral tradition as a scaffold for co-present communities , 2001, CHI.