Learning in Dense, Distributed Social Networks

I just finished reading my new Web 2.0 Bible: Here Comes Everyone.

I don't want this to be too much of book review, but you can probably already tell that I give a lot of heed to Clay's analysis of the changing social landscape in large part because of the invention and proliferation of the internet. We're just starting to see the real societal evolution-type tools seeping through the floorboards of previous failures. We're starting to realize that it's not just geeks and recluses that are using social networking tools like Facebook.

An aside: sometimes, when we gather in groups to discuss the phenomena of social networks, too often the questions start to tune like this "Well, I used [tool X] for minutes/hours/days, and [such-and-such] really bothered me. Is [tool X] really viable/valuable?" Almost always, this is the wrong question. Debating about whether or not Facebook is a viable tool is like standing on the side of the highway discussing if roads are really worth it--while hundreds of cars pass. Millions of people have already answered this question:Yes! If people are spending their time there, then we, as educators/business people/evangelists must not decide if, but how to use these tools.

One of the most interesting things I've learned about social networks such as Facebook is the complexity and geometry of the connections. Borrowing from the diagram below and Clay's observations, social networks have a much more decentralized look than a distributed or centralized network.Also, the connections, by and large, are for more denser among the clusters of connections than with the nodes that tie the distributed collections together. In other words, most people in social networks are closely tied to a group of people, with only one or two of those ties being to people who are tied to many, many people.

This structure seems to make sense. In fact, I would say that it's generally a good representation of the kind of social networks that exist in non-internet realms. Think of yourself and your group of friends, you're probably likely to see a similarity in structure.

Could educational social networks be described in a similar fashion? Take me for example. I am connected to multiple "educational" networks (they probably wouldn't describe themselves thus) that are extremely dense both as to the contributors as well as the content. One subject, one programming language, one API. However, some of those people in that network are also connected to multiple other content area networks. There isn't much transparency as to the benefits of multiple connections of educational networks: it's not like on Facebook where we can browse through each other's educational "friends." At least not yet.

Now back to the how for education. For Facebook, if we take into account the fact that the maintainers of this tool are ever increasingly seeking to be a platform for social interactions, then the possibilities of social objects are really endless. Not only that, but since the cost of producing quality, meaningful, and useful Facebook social objects (much due to the lowered cost of failing poor applications), Facebook has become, in a sense, a sandbox of social tool engineering. Without a doubt, we'll start to see more (and better) applications that enhance areas like education. There are already lists. Further, since education is in many aspects a social endeavor (and since it's where a great number of people are spending their time anyway), it seems hard to argue that social tools can't enhance, or at the very least, change the educational experience. With text messaging almost out of control amongst high schoolers and educators in a frenzy, we may already be seeing some change, for the better or worse. If social changes are occuring (they are), then social activities such as learning are bound to see changes as well.