.


The Weaknesses of Email Discussion Lists


Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:22:25 -0800
From: Richard Hake <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [Net-Gold] Re: The weaknesses of email discussion lists



If you reply to this long (14 kB) post please don't hit the reply
button unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear in your
reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already
archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.



****************************************



ABSTRACT: In response to my previous post "Re: The value of
discussion lists" a subscriber wrote to me privately, complaining
that his discussion list was "dead as a doornail . . . having
everything to do with its being 'open' -- in effect anyone who posts
to the list doesn't really know who is being addressed or who gets
copies of the postings. . .[so that] . . . the issues discussed are
unlikely to be settled on their own merits. . . [but are]. . .
instead subject to unpredictable interventions and manipulations of
every imaginable sort." Here I (a) point to two high-traffic lists,
POD and Phys-L, as counter examples where at least a few of the
issues discussed appear to be settled on their own merits, and (b)
enumerate what I consider to be some weaknesses of email discussion
lists as given in my listing of "Over Two-Hundred Education &
Science Blogs."


****************************************



In response to my post "Re: The value of email discussion lists"
[Hake (2009a), a subscriber "S" wrote to me privately, making points
S1 & S2 below, to which I respond at H1 & H2.



111111111111111111111111111111111111


S1. "In some tension with your posting, it seems clear to me and has
for some time that this list is as dead as a doornail. The basic
reason for this is that the xxx-L scholars don't use it."



H1. According to the xxx-L archives there were less than 5 posts on
that list during the month of October 2009. Similar listlessness is
the rule in most of the AERA discussion lists. For example only 4
posts appear on the October 2009 archives of AERA-C (Learning &
Instruction) at <http://tinyurl.com/yklys7e>. For a discussion of
the inactivity on AERA lists see "Why Aren't AERA Discussion Lists
More Active?" [Hake (2005a)].



222222222222222222222222222222222222


S2. "Why has it been left in this way? I think this has everything to
do with its being 'open'--in effect anyone who posts to the list
doesn't really know who is being addressed or who gets copies of the
postings. In consequence, I tend to think, the issues discussed are
unlikely to be settled on their own merits. They are instead subject
to unpredictable interventions and manipulations of every imaginable
sort."



H2. But there *are* "open" discussion lists which are *lively* as
judged by the number of posts per month, and on which at least a few
issues appear to be settled on their own merits. For example, among
the Academic Discussion Lists given in "Over Sixty Academic
Discussion Lists: List Addresses and URL's for Archives & Search
Engines" [Hake (2007)] consider:



a. Phys-L (Physics Education) where over 190 posts appear on the
OPEN! October 2009 archives at


<http://tinyurl.com/yc9jv3h>



b. POD (Professional & Organization Development Network in Higher
Education) where over 360 posts appear on the OPEN! October 2009
archives at


<http://tinyurl.com/yzud3rx>



Nevertheless, in my opinion, discussion lists, despite their value
[Hake (2009a)], generally fall far short of their potential to assist
and enlighten their subscribers. In "Over Two-Hundred Education &
Science Blogs" [Hake (2009b)], I listed some weaknesses of Academic
Discussion Lists (ADL's) as follows [bracketed by lines "HHHHH. . . .
."; see that post for references other than Hake (2005a,b,c; 2007),
MacIsaac (2000), and Roschelle and Pea (1999) ]



HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH



1. LITTLE COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF IDEAS


In the ADDENDUM to "Over Sixty Academic Discussion Lists. . ." [Hake
(2007)], I wrote (slightly edited): "In my opinion, many Academic
Discussion Lists fail [paraphrasing Roschelle and Pea (1999)] 'to
move beyond forums for exchanging insular tidbits and opinions, to
structures which rapidly capture knowledge-value and foster rapid
accumulation and growth of the community's capability . . . providing
tools to allow contributors to share partially completed resources,
and enable others to improve upon them.' "


2. SOME LIST OWNERS:


(a) Utilize antediluvian software that does not provide useful
archives and/or search engines.


(b) Regard cross-posting as sinful rather than synergistic, evidently
wishing their lists to remain inbred and isolated [see, e.g.:
"Cross-Posting - Synergistic or Sinful?" [Hake (2005b)].


(c) Do not recognize the "fair use" provision of U.S. copyright law
as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law, Title 17,
according to which copyrighted material (including discussion-list
posts) can be distributed, if it's done so without profit, to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes. For more
information see at


<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml>.



(d) Close the archives of their lists to non-subscribers, thus
impeding the flow of information from their lists to the web and
hence to the outer world - see the lower part of Fig. 1. . . . .[[on
page 32 of Hake (2009b)]]. . . . Such blockage is sometimes justified
on grounds that it prevents harvesting of email addresses by SPAMers,
but for lists running on LISTSERV software, SPAM'ers can be prevented
from harvesting email addresses by the simple strategy of requiring
log-in by list subscribers before addresses are made visible.



3. SOME SUBSCRIBERS:


(a) ignore common-sense posting suggestions [Hake (2005c)] that would
facilitate efficient communication;



(b) are unfamiliar with the technical and social aspects of ADL's as
addressed by Dan MacIsaac (2000) in his valuable article "Communities
of on-line physics educators." A cursory Google search failed to
uncover counterparts of MacIsaac's article for other disciplines;



(c) fail to utilize academic references or to even notice such
references in posts (except to inveigh against them as "busywork"
[Eckel (2003)];



(d) do not take advantage of hot linking - a prime but drastically
under-used capability of the internet;



(e) appear reticent to engage in discussions of educational research,
development, or assessment - the outstanding example being most of
AERA's <http://www.aera.net/> over 25,000 members, even despite the
excellent AERA ADL's set up by Gene Glass for each AERA division -
see e.g., "Why Aren't AERA Discussion Lists More Active?" [Hake
(2005a)];



(f) fail to take responsibility for their postings by hiding behind pseudonyms.



4. MOST SUBSCRIBERS: fail to search the archives before posting -
therefore the same material is often discussed over and over de novo
with little increase in understanding from year to year.



HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH




Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands.
<[log in to unmask]>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/>
<http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com/>



The culture of science includes the continual interaction, exchange,
evaluation, and criticism we make of each other's views. This
produces a kind of emergent phenomenon I refer to as a *community
consensus knowledge base* or more briefly, a *community map.*
Joe Redish (1999)



REFERENCES [Tiny URL's courtesy <http://tinyurl.com/create.php>.]
Hake, R.R. 2005a. "Why Aren't AERA Discussion Lists More Active?"
online at <http://tinyurl.com/2s3b9k>. Post of 11 Jun 2005
11:44:58-0700 to AERA-C, AERA-D, AERA-G, AERA-GSL, AERA-H, AERA-I,
AERA-J, AERA-K, AERA-TchEdPsych, and PhysLrnR.



Hake, R.R. 2005b. "Cross-Posting - Synergistic or Sinful?" Post of 1
Nov 2005 08:37:12-0800 to
ITFORUM and AERA-L; online at <http://tinyurl.com/2m59v4>.



Hake, R.R. 2005c. "Fourteen Posting Suggestions," online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0507&L=pod&P=R12861&I=-3>.
Post of 23 Jul 2005
11:38:29-0400 to AERA-C, AERA-G, AERA-GSL, AERA-H, AERA-I, AERA-J, AERA-K,
AERA-L, ASSESS, EvalTalk, Math-Learn, PhysLrnR, POD, STLHE-L,
TeachingEdPsych, and
TIPS.



Hake, R.R. 2007. "Over Sixty Academic Discussion Lists: List
Addresses and URL's for Archives & Search Engines," online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/ADL-L.pdf> (640 kB), or as ref.
49 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>. This will soon be
updated so as to include JOURNET, LearningSciences, MathEdu-L,
TeamLearning-L, TrDev-L, the new address for TeachEdPsych, and a
pointer to lists on H-Net. See the ADDENDUM for a critique of
academic discussion lists.



Hake, R.R. 2009a. "Re: The value of email discussion lists," online
on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://tinyurl.com/yawxua9>. Post
of 23 Nov 2009 12:07:47-0800 to AERA-L, JOURNET, & Net-Gold. The
abstract only was distributed to various discussion lists.



Hake, R.R. 2009b. "Over Two-Hundred Education & Science Blogs," 30
March; online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/Over200EdSciBlogsU.pdf> (2.6
MB). The abstract is online with a provision for comments at
<http://hakesedstuff.blogspot.com/search/label/Blogged>.



MacIsaac, D.L. 2000. "Communities of on-line physics educators,"
Phys. Teach. 38(4): 210-
213; online at
<http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/PHYS-L/TPTApr00art.pdf> (196 kB).
Discusses technical and social aspects of discussion lists and gives
reference information on four
major physics education lists: Phys-L, Physhare-L, PhysLrnR, and TAP-L.



Pea, R. 1999. "New Media Communications Forums for Improving
Education Research and
Practice," in E. C. Lagemann and L.S. Shulman, eds., "Issues In
Education Research" (Jossey-
Bass, 1999); online as a 3.2 MB pdf at <http://tinyurl.com/5nmdcg>.
For other publications and
colloquia see <http://www.stanford.edu/~roypea/HTML1%20Folder/articles.html>.



Redish, E.F.. 1999. "Millikan lecture 1998: building a science of
teaching physics. Am. J. Phys. 67(7): 562-573; online at
<http://www.physics.umd.edu/rgroups/ripe/perg/cpt.html>.



Roschelle, J & R. Pea. 1999. "Trajectories from Today's WWW to a
Powerful Educational
Infrastructure," Educational Researcher 8(5): 22-25, 43; online as a
28 kB pdf at
<http://ctl.sri.com/publications/displayPublication.jsp?ID=120>; see
also Pea (1999).



.