First experiences with a Science 2.0 infrastructure

This deliverable reports on first usage experiences and evaluations of the STELLAR Science 2.0 Infrastructure. Usage experiences were available predominantly for the "mature" part of the infrastructure provided by standard Web 2.0 tools adapted to STELLAR needs. Evaluations are provided for newly developed tools. We first provide an overview of the whole STELLAR Science 2.0 Infrastructure and the relationships between the building blocks. While the individual building blocks already benefit researchers, the integration between them is the key for a positive usage experience. The publication meta data ecosystem for example provides researchers with an easy to retrieve set of TEL related data. Tools like the ScienceTable, Muse, the STELLAR latest publication widget, and the STELLAR BuRST search show already several scenarios of how to make use of this infrastructure. Especially a strong focus on anlytical tools based on publication and social media data seem useful. In order to highlight the relevance of the infrastructure to the individual capacitiy building activties within STELLAR, the usage experiences of individual building blocks are then reported with respect to Researcher Capacity (e.g. Deliverable Wikis, More! application), Doctoral Academy Capacity (e.g. DoCoP), Community Level Capacity (e.g TELeurope), and Leadership Capacity (e.g. Meeting of Minds, Podcast Series). Here we draw from 11 scientific papers published. The reader will find an overview of all these papers in the Appendix. Based on the usage experiences and evaluations we have identified a number of ideas which might be worth considering for future developments. For example, the experiences gained with the Deliverable Wikis show how the modification of the standard Wiki history can provide useful analytical insights into the collaboration of living deliverables and can return the focus on authorship (which is intentionally masked in Wikis, because of their strong notion on the product and not on authors). We conclude with main findings and an outlook on the development plan and evaluation plan which are currently being developed and which will influence D6.6. Particularly, we close with the notion of a Personal Research Environment (PRE) which draws from the concept of Personal Learning Environments (PLE).

[1]  Ronald L. Miller,et al.  Enhancing Engineering Education Research Capacity Through Building A Community Of Practice , 2005 .

[2]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  Individual Focus and Knowledge Contribution , 2010, First Monday.

[3]  Denis Gillet,et al.  Social Software for Supporting Interaction in a Community of Practice Dedicated to e-Learning , 2008 .

[4]  W. Glänzel,et al.  Analysing Scientific Networks Through Co-Authorship , 2004 .

[5]  Heidi E. Buchanan,et al.  Collectivism vs. Individualism in a Wiki World: Librarians Respond to Jaron Lanier's Essay “Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism” , 2007 .

[6]  Paul Clements,et al.  Software architecture in practice , 1999, SEI series in software engineering.

[7]  Denis Gillet,et al.  Social Software for Sustaining Interaction, Collaboration, and Learning in Communities of Practice , 2009 .

[8]  Martin Ebner,et al.  Why is Wikipedia so Successful? Experiences in Establishing the Principles in Higher Education , 2006 .

[9]  Hugh Glaser,et al.  RKBExplorer: Repositories, Linked Data and Research Support , 2009 .

[10]  Ann C. Svendsen,et al.  Convening Stakeholder Networks A New Way of Thinking, Being and Engaging , 2005 .

[11]  C. Goldspink.  NORMATIVE BEHAVIOUR IN WIKIPEDIA , 2010 .

[12]  Daniel J. Wigdor,et al.  Direct-touch vs. mouse input for tabletop displays , 2007, CHI.

[13]  Yves Punie,et al.  Learning 2.0: the Impact of Web 2.0 Innovations on Education and Training in Europe , 2009 .

[14]  Colin Tattersall,et al.  Critical facilities for active participation in learning networks , 2006, Int. J. Web Based Communities.

[15]  Roger Burrows,et al.  Sociology and, of and in Web 2.0: Some Initial Considerations , 2007 .

[16]  Charles M. Reigeluth,et al.  Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory , 1999 .

[17]  Martin Wattenberg,et al.  Studying cooperation and conflict between authors with history flow visualizations , 2004, CHI.

[18]  Clayton Lewis,et al.  TASK-CENTERED USER INTERFACE DESIGN A Practical Introduction , 2006 .

[19]  Tim O'Reilly,et al.  What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software , 2007 .

[20]  Vladimir I. Levenshtein,et al.  Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals , 1965 .

[21]  Stuart K. Card,et al.  The cost structure of sensemaking , 1993, INTERCHI.

[22]  E. Tufte.  Beautiful Evidence , 2006 .

[23]  Emilio Delgado López-Cózar,et al.  Ciencia 2.0: catálogo de herramientas e implicaciones para la actividad investigadora , 2009 .

[24]  Anne Baumgraß,et al.  Analyzing Wiki-based Networks to Improve Knowledge Processes in Organizations , 2008, J. Univers. Comput. Sci..

[25]  Colin Tattersall,et al.  Learning Design: A Handbook on Modelling and Delivering Networked Education and Training , 2010 .

[26]  E. Duval,et al.  Visualizing Social Bookmarks , 2007 .

[27]  José Eustáquio Rangel de Queiroz,et al.  A Multidimensional Approach for the Evaluation of Mobile Application User Interfaces , 2009, HCI.

[28]  Katherine W. McCain,et al.  Visualizing a Discipline: An Author Co-Citation Analysis of Information Science, 1972-1995 , 1998, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[29]  Erik Duval,et al.  Who We Are: Analysis of 10 Years of the ED-MEDIA Conference , 2009 .

[30]  C. Lee Giles,et al.  ParsCit: an Open-source CRF Reference String Parsing Package , 2008, LREC.

[31]  Les Carr,et al.  Trailblazing the literature of hypertext: author co-citation analysis (1989–1998) , 1999, HYPERTEXT '99.

[32]  R. A. Day,et al.  How to Write and Publish Scientific Papers , 1998 .

[33]  Fridolin Wild,et al.  Shifting interests: changes in the lexical semantics of ED-MEDIA , 2010 .

[34]  Michel C. A. Klein,et al.  Semantics-based Publication Management using RSS and FOAF , 2005, Semantic Desktop Workshop.

[35]  Hans Hummel,et al.  Building communities for the exchange of learning objects : theoretical foundations and requirements , 2004 .

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

[37]  Donatella Persico,et al.  D5.2 - Stakeholder engagement plan, report on Guidelines and Monitoring tools-metrics , 2011 .

[38]  P. Anderson.  What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education , 2007 .

[39]  Erik Duval,et al.  Using information visualization for accessing learning object repositories , 2004, Proceedings. Eighth International Conference on Information Visualisation, 2004. IV 2004..

[40]  Alex Paramythis,et al.  A Decomposition Model for the Layered Evaluation of Interactive Adaptive Systems , 2005, User Modeling.

[41]  Mark William Johnson,et al.  Personal Learning Environments: Challenging the Dominant Design of Educational Systems , 2006, EC-TEL Workshops.

[42]  J. Sylvan Katz,et al.  Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration , 1994, Scientometrics.

[43]  Ann Majchrzak,et al.  Enabling Customer-Centricity Using Wikis and the Wiki Way , 2006, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[44]  W. Reinhard,et al.  How people are using Twitter during conferences , 2009 .

[45]  William R Duncan.  Developing a project-management body-of-knowledge document: the US Project Management Institute's approach, 1983-94 , 1995 .

[46]  Aniket Kittur,et al.  Us vs. Them: Understanding Social Dynamics in Wikipedia with Revert Graph Visualizations , 2007, 2007 IEEE Symposium on Visual Analytics Science and Technology.

[47]  Jean-Daniel Fekete,et al.  20 Years of Four HCI Conferences: A Visual Exploration , 2007, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[48]  Peter Bergström,et al.  Augmenting the exploration of digital libraries with web-based visualizations , 2009, 2009 Fourth International Conference on Digital Information Management.

[49]  David Coleman,et al.  Collaboration 2.0: Technology and Best Practices for Successful Collaboration in a Web 2.0 World , 2008 .

[50]  Erik Duval,et al.  Quantitative analysis of user-generated content on the Web , 2008 .

[51]  Denis Gillet,et al.  The 3A contextual ranking system: simultaneously recommending actors, assets, and group activities , 2009, RecSys '09.

[52]  Lluís Codina Bonilla.  Ciencia 2.0: Redes sociales y aplicaciones en línea para académicos , 2009 .

[53]  Tony DeRose,et al.  Determining the benefits of direct-touch, bimanual, and multifinger input on a multitouch workstation , 2009, Graphics Interface.

[54]  Deepak Ramachandran,et al.  Trust and Online Reputation Systems , 2009, Computing with Social Trust.

[55]  Oded Nov,et al.  What motivates Wikipedians? , 2007, CACM.

[56]  Koen Frenken,et al.  The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration , 2007 .

[57]  Eleni Stroulia,et al.  Recognizing contributions in wikis: Authorship categories, algorithms, and visualizations , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[58]  Lloyd Rutledge,et al.  ReMashed - Recommendations for Mash-Up Personal Learning Environments , 2009, EC-TEL.

[59]  Daniel Burgos,et al.  Engaging the community in multidisciplinary TEL research: a case-study from networking in Europe , 2010 .

[60]  Chris North,et al.  A Comparison of User-Generated and Automatic Graph Layouts , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[61]  William Snyder,et al.  Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge , 2002 .

[62]  Wolfgang Reinhardt,et al.  Artefact-Actor-Networks as tie between social networks and artefact networks , 2009, 2009 5th International Conference on Collaborative Computing: Networking, Applications and Worksharing.